Skip to main content

Full text of "Grammar of New Testament Greek"

See other formats




/Ö ,/ZL, Z o 

Jffrom tty Htbrartr of 

ProfpHflor (Benjamin (Smkinrtöge HarMö 

<Sequ?aiIjeö by Ijtm to 

% library of 

JPrmretntt Sbeolnmral §>emtnarg 


/?.-'#3s a^.ii^fcsa- 


1 1 ebi 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2011 with funding from 

Princeton Theological Seminary Library 









FRIEDRICH BLASS, Dr.Piiil., D.Th., Hon. LL.D. Dublin 










Professor Blass's Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch 
appeared in Germany in October, 1896. The present translation 
reproduces the whole work with the exception of the Preface, 
which the author considered unsuitable to the English edition, 
on account of the somewhat personal character given to it by 
the dedication which he had combined with it. Some points of 
the Preface, however, are of sufficient general interest to be repro- 
duced here in a summary form. 

The author maintains that whereas Hellenistic Greek cannot 
in comparison with Attic Greek be regarded as a very rich 
language, it is for all that (except where borrowed literary words 
and phrases intrude themselves) a pure language, which is 
governed by regular laws of its own. He applies to it the 
proverb tcov /caAcoi/ kcu to [xeToirwpov kol\6v. 

The present work does not profess to give the elements of 
Greek grammar, but presupposes some knowledge on the part 
of the reader. Those who desire to read the Greek Testament 
after a two months' study of the Greek language are referred to 
such works as Huddilston's Essentials of New Testament Greek. 

With regard to textual criticism, a distinguishing feature in the 
grammar is that whereas earlier grammarians quote the editions 
of the leading N.T. critics, Professor Blass quotes the MSS., 
leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the true 
text in each instance. Whilst admitting that we have now 
reached something like a new "Textus Receptus" based on the 
oldest Greek tradition, and acknowledging the services rendered 
to N.T. criticism by such critics as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott 
and Hort, and Tregelles, he has to confess that a definite conclusion 
on this subject has not yet been arrived at. 

The only point in reference to matters of ' higher criticism ' to 
which attention has to be called is that the John who wrote the 


Apocalypse is distinguished from John the author of the Gospel 
and Epistles. The first and second Epistles of Peter do not 
present sufficiently well-marked differences to require a distinction 
to be drawn between them in a grammar of this kind. The 
Pauline Epistles are all quoted as the work of St. Paul; the Epistle 
to the Hebrews is naturally not so quoted. The general position 
taken up by Professor Blass with regard to questions of authorship 
is shown by the following words : ' The tradition which has been 
transmitted to us as to the names of the authors of the N.T. books, 
in so far as it is unanimous, I hold to be approximately con- 
temporary with those authors; that is to say* the approximation 
is as close as we can at present look for ; and, without claiming 
to be a prophet, one may assert that, to whatever nearer approxim- 
ation we may be brought by fortunate discoveries in the future, 
Luke will remain Luke, and Mark will continue to be Mark.' 

The books to which the author expresses his obligations are the 
grammars of Winer (including the new edition of P. Schmiedel) and 
Buttmann, Jos. Viteau, Etude sw le Gtec du N.T., Paris, 1893, and 
Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, Chicago, 
1893. The first-named of these works having grown to such 
voluminous proportions, the present grammar, written in a smaller 
compass, may, the author hopes, find a place beside it for such 
persons as maintain the opinion /xkya ßißXiov fxeya kolkov. 

The isolation of the N.T. from other contemporary or nearly 
contemporary writings is a hindrance to the proper understanding 
of it, and should by all means be avoided ; illustrations are there- 
fore drawn by the writer from the Epistle of Barnabas, the 
Shepherd of Hermas, the first and the so-called second Epistle of 
Clement, and the Clementine Homilies. 

The translator has merely to add that the references have been 
to a great extent verified by him, and that the proofs have all 
passed through the hands of Professor Blass, who has introduced 
several additions and corrections which are not contained in the 
original German edition. He has also to express his thanks to 
the Rev. A. E. Brooke, Fellow of King's College. Cambridge, for 
kindly looking over the greater part of the translation in ms. and 
removing some of its imperfections, and to two of his own sisters 
for welcome assistance in the work of transposing the third of the 
Indices to suit the new pagination. 

H. St. J. T. 

May 13, 1898. 




§ 1. Introduction, -------- 1 

§ 2. Elements of the New Testament language, - - - 2 

§ 3. Orthography, -------- 6 

§ 4. Division of words, accents, breathings, punctuation, - - 13 

§ 5. Elision, crasis, variable final consonants, - - - - IS 

§ 6. Sporadic sound-changes, ------ 20 

§ 7. First and second declensions, - - - - - 25 

§ 8. Third declension, - - - - - - - 26 

§ 9. Metaplasmus, ------- 28 

§ 10. Proper names. Indeclinable nouns, - - - - 29 

§11. Adjectives, -------- 32 

§ 12. Numerals, -------- 35 

§ 13. Pronouns, -------- 35 

§ 14. System of conjugation, ------ 36 

§ 15. Augment and reduplication, ------ 37 

§ 16. Verbs in -w. Tense formation, - - - - - 40 

§ 17. Verbs in -w. New formation of a present tense, - - 40 

§ 18. Verbs in -w. On the formation of the future, - - - 41 

§ 19. Verbs in -w. First and second aorist, - - - - 43 

§ 20. Verbs in -w. Aorist and future of deponent verbs, - - 44 

§ 21. Verbs in -w. Terminations, - - - - - 45 

§ 22. Contract verbs, ------- 47 

§23. Verbs in -fit, ......... 48 

§ 24. Table of noteworthy verbs, ------ 52 

§ 25. Adverbs, -------- 58 

§26. Particles, 60 

§ 27. Word-formation by means of terminations and suffixes, - - 61 

§ 28. Word-formation by composition, ----- 65 

§ 29. Proper names, ....... 70 



§ 30. Subject and predicate, 
§ 31. Agreement, 






Gender and number, ..... 

The cases. Nominative and vocative, 

The accusative, ...... 

The genitive, ...... 

Continuation : genitive with verbs, etc., 

Dative, ....... 

Continuation : instrumental and temporal dative, - 

The cases with prepositions. Prepositions with the accusative, 

Prepositions with the genitive, .... 

Prepositions with the dative, 

Prepositions with two cases, 

Prepositions with three cases, 

Syntax of the adjective, ..... 

Numerals, ....... 

§ 46. The article. I. 6, i], t6 as pronoun ; the article with independent 
substantives, ....... 

§ 47. The article. II. The article with adjectives etc. ; the article 
with connected parts of speech, .... 

















§ 48. Personal, reflexive, and possessive pronouns, 

§ 49. Demonstrative pronouns, .... 

§ 50. Relative and interrogative pronouns, 

§51. Indefinite pronouns ; pronominal words. 




§ 52. The voices of the verb, 

§ 53. Active voice, - 

§ 54. Passive voice, 

§ 55. Middle voice, 

§ 56. The tenses. Present tense, - 

§ 57. Imperfect and aorist indicative, 

S 58. Moods of the present and the aorist, 





§ 59. The perfect, - - ..... 19g 

§60. Pluperfect, - - ----- 201 

§ 61. Future, - - - 201 

§ 62. Periphrastic conjugation, .... . 202 

§ 63. The moods. Indicative of unreality (and repetition), - - 205 

§ 64. Conjunctive and future (or present) indicative in principal clauses, 208 
§ 65. Conjunctive and future (or present) indicative in subordinate 

clauses, - - - - - - - 211 

§ 66. Remains of the optative, - .... 219 

§ 67. Imperative, - 221 

§68. Infinitive, - - 221 

§ 69. Infinitive and periphrasis with Iva, - - 222 

§ 70. Infinitive and periphrasis with on, - - - . 230 

§ 71. Infinitive with the article, .... . 233 

§ 72. Cases with the infinitive. Nominative and accusative with the 

infinitive, -------- 237 

§ 73. Participle. (I.) Participle as attribute — representing a substantive 

— as predicate, ------- 242 

§ 74. Participle. (II.) As an additional clause in the sentence, - 247 

§ 75. The negatives, ....... 253 

§ 76. Other adverbs, ------- 257 

§ 77. Particles (conjunctions), ------ 259 

§ 78. Particles (continued),- ...... 270 

§ 79. Connection of sentences, ....-- 275 

§ SO. Position of words (position of clauses), .... 287 

§ 81. Ellipse (Brachylogy), pleonasm, .... - 291 

§ 82. Arrangement of words ; figures of speech, - 295 

I. Index of subjects, ....... 304 

II. Index of Greek words, ...... 312 

III. Index of New Testament passages, ----- 332 


p. 3, line 28, for ' of the present day ' read ' or those which they 

have reached at the present day 
p. 60, line 22, for ovv read ovv. 
p. 68, last line, for 3 Jo. 2 read 3 Jo. g. 
p. 114, line 14, for KoWavdai read KoWdcrdai. 

line 29, omit the comma before rrj Triarei. 

line 36, for ' for which ' read ' for the dative.' 
p. 115, 12 lines from the bottom, for n-X^as read irXrjyds. 

2 lines from the bottom, for tlvi read tlvL 
p. 172, line 14, for Mt. 24. 23 read Mt. 24. 43. 
p. 220, note I, for A. 1. 8 read A. 1. 20. 
p. 232, line 3, for H. 13. 8 read H. 13. 18. 



1. The special study of the grammar of New Testament Greek 
has been for the most part prompted by purely practical needs. In 
Greek literature as such the writings brought together in the New 
Testament can claim but a very modest position ; and the general 
grammar of the Greek language can take but very limited notice of 
the special features which they present. Yet, on the other hand, 
their contents give them so paramount an importance, that in order 
to understand them fully, and to restore them to their primitive 
form, the most exact investigation even of their grammatical peculi- 
arities becomes an absolute necessity. 

The New Testament writers represent in general that portion of 
the population of the Hellenised East, which, while it employed 
Greek more or less fluently as the language of intercourse and 
commerce — side by side with the native languages which were by 
no means superseded — yet remained unfamiliar with the real 
Hellenic culture and the literature of classical Greek. How far, in 
this respect, exceptions are to be admitted in the case of Luke and 
Paul, as also in the case of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
(Barnabas), it is not easy to decide : at any rate the traces of 
classical culture even in these writers are next to nothing, whereas 
in the next generation a Clement of Borne, with his ywaiKts 
Aavcu'Ses Kai AipKai and his story of the phoenix, 1 at once displays an 
entirely different character. Accordingly, the language employed 
in the N.T. is such as was spoken in the lower circles of society, not 
such as was written in works of literature. But between these two 
forms of speech there existed even at that time a very considerable 
difference. The literary language had always remained dependent 
in some measure on the old classical masterpieces ; and though in 
the first centuries of Hellenic influence it had followed the develop- 
ment of the living language, and so had parted some distance from 
those models, yet since the first century before Christ it had kept 
struggling back to them again with an ever-increasing determination. 

1 Clem, ad Corinth, vi. 2 : xxv. 
® A 

2 INTRODUCTION. [§ i. 1-2, § 2. 1. 

If, then, the literature of the Alexandrian period must be called 
Hellenistic, that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic. 
But the popular language had gone its own way, and continued to 
do so until out of ancient Greek there was gradually developed 
modern Greek, which, however, in its literature — its prose literature 
in particular — is still very strongly affected by classic influences. 
The N.T. then shows us an intermediate stage on the road between 
ancient and modern Greek ; on this ground, too, its language is 
deserving of a special treatment. 

2. It is indeed true that for a knowledge of the popular language 
of the first century after Christ, as of the immediately preceding and 
succeeding periods, the N.T. is by no means our only source. In 
the way of literature not much is to be added, certainly nothing 
which can diminish the supreme importance of the N.T. Un- 
doubtedly the Greek translations of the Old Testament show a great 
affinity of language, but they are translations, and slavishly literal 
translations ; no one ever spoke so, not even the Jewish translators. 
Of profane literature, one might perhaps quote the discourses of 
Epictetus contained in Arrian's commentary as the work most avail- 
able for our purpose. But the spoken language is found quite pure, 
purer by far than in the N.T. itself — found, too, in its various 
gradations, corresponding naturally to the position and education of 
the speaker — in those private records, the number and importance 
of which is being perpetually increased by fresh discoveries in Egj-pt. 
The language of the N.T. may, therefore, be quite rightly treated 
in close connection with these. A grammar of the popular language 
of the period, written on the basis of all these various authorities 
and remains, would be perhaps, from the grammarian's point of view, 
more satisfactory than one which was limited to the language of the 
New Testament. 1 The practical considerations, however, from which 
we set out, will be constantly imposing such a limitation ; for it 
cannot be of the same importance to us to know what some chance 
Egyptian writes in a letter or deed of sale, as it is to know what the 
men of the N.T. have written, however true it may be that in their 
own day the cultured world drew no distinction between these last 
and the lower classes of Egyptians and Syrians, and despised them 
both alike. 


1. By far the most predominant element in the language of the 
New Testament is the Greek of common speech which was dis- 
seminated in the East by the Macedonian conquest, in the form 
which it had gradually assumed under the wider development of 
several centuries. This common speech is in the main a somewhat 
modified Attic, in which were omitted such Attic peculiarities as 
appeared too strange to the bulk of the remaining Greeks, such 
as tt instead of crcr in Bakarra. etc., and pp instead of pa- in appip> 

1 Cf. G. A. Deissmaun, Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1895), p. 57 n°. 


etc. As a matter of course it is the later Attic, not the older, 
which lies at the base of it, which explains, to take one example, 
the absence of any trace of a dual in this language. But as the 
development extended, the remaining distinctions in the language 
between duality and plurality were also set aside : not only is 
7rdrepos abandoned for tis, (Karepos for ckchttos, and so on, but 
above all the superlative is abandoned for the comparative : and 
this is a state of things which we find in the language of the 
N.T., but by no means in the literary language of a contemporary 
and later date, which affords no traces of these peculiarities. With 
this is connected the more limited use of the optative, and many 
other usages, to be discussed in their place. Another not very con- 
siderable portion of the alterations concerns the phonetic forms 
of declension and conjugation, under which may be classed the 
extension of the inflexion -a, gen. -77s to words in -pa, and the trans- 
ference of 1st aorist terminations to the 2nd aorist. A third and 
much larger class embraces the uses and combinations of forms and 
"form-words," in which a similar striving after simplification is 
unmistakable. Very many usages disappear ; the use of the 
infinitive as the complement of the verb is extended at the ex- 
pense of that of the participle, the objective accusative at the 
expense of the genitive and dative ; the rules concerning ov or 
jxi) are as simple as they are intricate for the classical languages. 
Of quite another order, and concealed by the orthography, which 
remained the same, are the general changes in the sounds of the 
language, which even at that time had been carried out in no small 
measure, though it was not till long afterwards that they reached 
their later dimensions of the present day. A last class is composed 
of changes in lexicology — for the most part the substitution of a 
new expression in place of the usual expression for a thing or an 
idea, or the approach to such a substitution, the new appearing 
side by side with the old as its equivalent. This, however, does 
not as a rule come within the province of grammar, unless the 
expression be a kind of t: form-word," for instance a preposition, or 
an irregular verb, an instance of this being the present of etSov, 
which in general is no longer 6pw, but ß\eTrio or dtwpw. The 
Hellenistic language as a whole is in its way not less subject to 
rules nor less systematic than Attic ; but it has certainly not 
received such a literary cultivation as the latter, because the con- 
tinuous development of culture never allowed it completely to 
break away from the older form, which was so exclusively regarded 
as the standard of what the language should be. 1 

1 Since the koivtj had such a wide diffusion, from Italy and Gaul to Egypt and 
Syria, it is a priori impossible that it should have been everywhere entirely 
uniform, and so it is correct to speak also of an Alexandrian dialect (rj 'A\e£av- 
dpeuv SidXeKTos) as a special form of it (W.-Schm. § 3, 1, note 4). Of course we 
are not in a position to make many distinctions in details in this respect ; yet 
even in the N.T. writers certain differences are well-marked, which have nothing 
to do with a more or less cultivated style, e.g. some writers, and Luke in 
particular, confuse els and ev, whereas the author of the Apocalypse is able 
to distinguish between these prepositions. Again Hermas, undoubtedly 


2. One element of the popular languages of that time, and there- 
fore of the New Testament language, which though not prominent 
is clearly traceable, is the Latin element. The ruling people of 
Italy intermingled with the population of all the provinces ; Eoman 
proper names were widely circulated (as the N.T. at once clearly 
shows in the names of its authors and the persons addressed) ; but 
appellatives (Kouu-TwoYa, a-ovodptov, KevTvpiwv) also found admission, 
and some phrases, particularly of commercial and legal life, were 
literally translated (as to Ikolvov 7rotetv, kafißdvetv = satisfacere, satis 
accipere). In general, however, this influence remains confined to 
lexicology and phraseology ; in a slight degree it affects the form- 
ation of words ('H/KoS-iavot, Xp^a-T-tavoi), in perhaps a greater degree 
the syntax (eKeAeuo-ev avrw oura)^ 6?] uai — duci eum iussit), still it is 
difficult here to determine what is due to native development of 
the language and what to foreign influence. 

3. The national Hebrew or Aramaic element influenced Greek- 
writing Jews in a threefold manner. In the first place it is 
probable that the speaker or writer quite involuntarily and uncon- 
sciously rendered a phrase from his mother tongue by an accurately 
corresponding phrase ; again, that the reading and hearing of the 
Old Testament in the Greek version coloured the writer's style, 
especially if he desired to write in a solemn and dignified manner 
(just as profane writers borrowed phrases from the Attic writers 
for a similar object) ; third and last, a great part of the N.T. 
writings (the three first Gospels and the first half of the Acts) is 
in all probability a direct working over of Hebrew or Aramaic 
materials. This was not a translation like that executed by the 
LXX., rendered word for word with the utmost fidelity, and almost 
without any regard to intelligibility ; but it was convenient to 
adhere to the originals even in expression instead of looking for 
a form of expression which was good Greek. The Hebraisms and 
Aramaisms are, then, for the most part of a lexical kind, i.e. they 
consist in the meaning which is attributed to a word (a-KavSaXov is 

the rendering of b'llIJS'K) in the ethical sense, hence o-KavSaAi{eiv), 
or in phrases literally translated (as 7rpocrw7rov \ap.ßdveiv D^D NU?3 
'to respect the person,' hence Trpoo-cinroAvy/z/m/s - A^/x^ta); these 
expressions, which moreover are not too numerous, must have been 
current in Jewish, and subsequently in Christian, communities. 
In the department of grammar the influence of Hebrew is seen 
especially in a series of peculiarities in the use of prepositions, 
consisting partly of circumlocutions such as dpka-Ki.iv kvunriov tu-os 
instead of tlv'l, ivpo Trpoo-iowov tv}s el&oSov avrov, ( before him,' partly 
in an extended use of certain prepositions such as ev (em) on the 

a representative of the unadulterated koivti, uses often enough the superlative 
forms in -rctros and -igtos in elative sense, whereas the forms in -raros are gener- 
ally absent from the writers of the N.T., and even those in -kttos are only very 
seldom found (see § 11, 3). Such cases must, then, go back to local differences 
within the koivti, even if we can no longer rightly assign the range of circulation 
of individual peculiarities. 


analogy of the corresponding Hebrew word (3) ; much is also taken 
over in the use of the article and the pronouns ; to which must be 
added the periphrasis for the simple tense by means of ?]v etc. 
with the participle, beside other examples. 

4. The literary language has also furnished its contribution to 
the language of the N.T., if only in the case of a few more cultured 
writers, especially Luke, Paul, and the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. 1 A very large number of good classical constructions are 
indeed found in the N.T., but confined to these particular writers, 
just as it is only they who occasionally employ a series of words 
which belonged to the language of literary culture and not to 
colloquial speech. Persons of some culture had these words and 
constructions at their disposal when they required them, and would 
even employ the correct forms of words as alternatives to the vulgar 
forms of ordinary use. This is shown most distinctly by the speech 
of Paul before Agrippa (Acts xxvi.), which we may safely regard as 
reported with comparative accuracy. On this occasion, when Paul 
had a more distinguished audience than he ever had before, he 
makes use not only of pure Greek proverbs and modes of speech 
(Trpbs Kevrpov XaKTL^eiv 14, ovk eaTiv kv ywvia TreTrpa.yp.evov tovto 26), 
but there also appears here the only superlative in -tcitos in the 
whole N.T. (tt)v a.Kpiße(TTdrr]v aipecrtv 5), and here only tcrao-iv for 
'they know' (4), not oi6Wiv ; he must therefore have learnt some- 
where (?at school), that in order to speak correct Attic Greek one 
must conjugate icr^ev icrre 10-ao-tv. So also it is not surprising if 
Paul writes to his pupils and colleagues in a somewhat different, 
i.e. in a somewhat higher style, than that which he uses in writing 
to his congregations. It is noteworthy that in the artificial repro- 
duction of the ancient language the same phenomenon repeated 
itself to a certain degree, which had long before occurred in the 
reproduction of Homeric language by subsequent poets : namely, 
that the imitator sometimes misunderstood, and accordingly misused, 
a phrase. Just as Archilochus on the strength of the Homeric 
line : t'zkvov £p.6v, ytverj p.\v virkprepos kcrnv ' K^iWeis, 7rpecrßvT€po<s 8e 
crv ecro-i (II. xi. 786, Mencetius to Patroclus) employed virkprepos = 
vewrepos (a sense which it never bore) 2 : so in all probability Luke 
(with or without precedent) used p.eTa -n)v a<£i£iv p.ov in A. 20. 29 
as equivalent to ' after my departure,' because he had misunderstood 
pera rrjv a7ri^ti/ (correctly 'arrival') rvys yvvai/cos in Herodotus, 9, 77 
The same writer has dir-tjeo-av, e^yeo-av (from the obsolete ct7ret/ii, 
e£ei/xi) with the force of the aorist, eKeicre, opocre, in answer to the 
question Where 1 and many other instances. 

1 The discrimination between the popular element and the literary element 
interwoven into it is very minutely worked out in J. Viteau, Etude sur le Grec 
du JY.T. : Le verbe, syntaxe des propositions, Paris, 1893. 

2 Vide the Scholia to II. loc. cit. (Archilochus, frag. 28, Bergk.). 

ORTHOGRAPHY. {% 3. 1. 


1. One portion of the changes in the Greek language that have 
been alluded to (§2, 1) concerned generally the sounds and com- 
binations of these ; but in general alterations of this kind it is 
usual for the spelling not to imitate the new sound off-hand, and 
certainly not without hesitation, in the case of a word which already 
had a stereotyped and ordinary spelling. So, in Greek, in the 
time of the composition of the N.T., there was, as we know from 
manifold evidence of stone and papyrus, no one fixed orthography in 
existence, but writers fluctuated between the old historical spelling 
and a new phonetic manner of writing. The sound-changes, 
at that time not nearly so great as they afterwards became, had 
principally to do with the so-called t adscript in the diphthongs 
P> ?/> V (strictly dt, 771, on with i pronounced), which, since about the 
second century before Christ, had become mute, and with the old 
diphthong et, which from about the same period ceased to be 
distinguished from long 1. But the writing of AI, HI, £>I, EI did 
not on that account become obsolete, preserved as they were by 
their occurrence in all ancient books and literal transcripts of them ; 
only it was no longer known in which cases ä, e, ö should be 
furnished with the symbol for t mute, and in which cases long i 
should be written as EI. Many persons took the drastic measure 
of omitting the t mute in all cases, even in the dative, as Strabo l 
attests, in the same way that we also find I as the prevailing spelling 
for l (though still not without exceptions) in manuscripts of the 
period 2 ; others considered that in EI as against I they had a 
convenient means of distinguishing between I and %, in the same 
way that e and e, ö and u were distinguished. So /aveis is sometimes 
KiNic, sometimes kcingic; and even keinic would be frequently 
written by any ordinary scribe. It was not until a later date that 
the historical method of writing was uniformly carried out, and 
even then not without occasional errors, by learned grammarians, 
especially Herodian of Alexandria, who taught in Rome under 
M. Aurelius. This was in keeping with the prevailing impulse of 
the time, which made for the revival of the old classical language. 
Since then, in spite of increasing difficulties, this method of spelling 
has been continuously taught and inculcated in the schools witb the 
help of numerous artificial rules up till the present day. 

2. It is impossible therefore to suppose, after what has been 
stated, that even Luke and Paul could have employed the correct 
historical spelling in the case of t mute and et ; for at that time 
there was nobody in the schools of Antioch and Tarsus who could 
teach it them, certainly not in the case of et, though some rules 
might be formulated at an earlier period with regard to t mute. 
We are debarred from all knowledge as to how they actually did 

1 Strabo, xiv., p. 648, troWol yap x w P' s T °v ' ypacpovai ras donnas, Kai eV/3dX\oi«7i 
dt to Udos (pvcriKr/v airiav ovk ^x "- 

2 Papyrus MS. of the poems of Hero(n)das, London, 1S91. 

§ 3 . 2-4] ORTHOGRAPHY. j 

write, and it is a matter of indifference, provided that one realizes 
this state of things, and recognizes that e.g. Aoocin stood equally 
well for Swa-iv or oWetv. The oldest scribes whose work we possess 
(cent. 4-6) always kept themselves much freer from the influence of 
the schools than the later, i.e. they frequently wrote phonetically or 
according to the rule et = I (so the scribe of B), and indeed t mute 
finds no place in MSS. before the seventh century. In our case there 
can be no question that we should follow the Byzantine school, and 
consistently employ the historical spelling in the N.T., as well as in 
the case of all profane writers, and remove all half measures, such as 
those, for instance, still remaining in Tischendorf, without any 
regard to the MS. evidence. The recording and weighing of evidence 
of this kind in the case of individual words, e.g. words in -eta, -ia, is 
the most unprofitable of tasks that a man can undertake. 

3. The i mute should therefore be supplied, as the correct his- 
torical spelling, in the following words, as well as in the well-known 
cases : ptpvr/o-Ketv, Qv\)<tk(.iv (for -rpto-Keiv), TravTa\rj, Trdvrr), cikv/, 
Kpvrfnj, XdOpa, vrefrj, (avTt)7repa x (old dative forms) ; döojos, £wov, 
7raT/3wos, iVepwoi', wov, Tpcoas, c Hpw6\is (for 'HpcotSris, from -Ijptos), 
vrpwpa, crw^etv (for o-w-t£etv). In the case of crw^etv, it is not yet 
satisfactorily ascertained how far the tenses partook of the t, since 
o-aow interposes itself and supplies Zcnadrjv (for icrauOrjv), o-urr/p etc. ; 
in the active we may write craxrw, eowa, o-eb-wKa : in the perf. pass, 
creo-wo-pou appears to be correct, like, but o-eo-wrat (A. 4. 9) 
on the model of eo-alör/v. It is also doubtful whether an 1 was ever 
present in the forms first found in Hellenistic Greek, Surjv, yvu>r)v 
(optat.), 7raTpoXa>as, p^rpoAwas (Attic Soirjv, yvon^v, -Aotas) ; but 
since 1 is essential to the optative, we may insert it in those 
instances. As yet there is not sufficient evidence to decide between 
irpoios — irpaos, 7rpaoT7y? — 7rpaoT7^s. For et in place of rji vide infra 5. 

4. Ei for 1 is established in mss. and editions, being found most 
persistently in Semitic words, especially proper names, where it 
would never once be without use as an indication of the length of 
the 1, provided only that it be correctly understood to have this 
meaning, and not to represent a diphthong, which is fundamentally 
wrong. We can, if we please, in these cases assist the pronunciation 
by means of the symbol for a long vowel (t) : thus Aat»iS, 'ASSl, 
'Äy/p, Beviaptv, 'EAtaKtp, 'EXlcraßer, 2 'Icupos, Kts, Aeut(s), Ne<£öaAtp, 
2a7T<£tpa, 3 Taßida, Xepovßiv; TeOcri] pavt, 4 'Iept^co 5 ; -i)Xl, paßßl, TaXlda, 

1 Certainly in later times the a in (Ka^avrttrepa appears to be short, since it 
is elided in verse, Maneth. iv. 188. 

2 EXeicr. always in B, generally N, occasionally CD, see Tisch, on L. 1. 5. 

3 The mss. (A. 5. 1) vary between et, t, v: there is no doubt of the identity 
of the name with the Aram. NTQB» (pulchra), still it has been Grecised (gen. -r\% 
like fidxa-Lpa, -prjs. § 7, 1) no doubt in connection with crdn-0(e)tpos, in which the 
ct is quite unjustifiable (Ap. 21. 19, -ipos BP). 

4 See Kautzsch in W.-Schm. § 5, 13 a (Hebr. yaw m for D»r). The spelling 
with 77 at the end as against -ei, -t has only the very slenderest attestation ; 
even the 77 of the second syllable must perhaps give way to the a of the western 
tradition (many authorities in Mt. 26. 36 : cp. Mc. 14. 32). 

5 With et Mt. 20. 29 BCLZ ; so always B, frequently «(D). 

8 ORTHOGRAPHY. [§ 3. 4-6. 

aaßa^davi. The proper names in -tas have in most cases 1, and 
therefore no et (so Maptap, Mapta), but rightly 'HAeias, 'HAtas 

*$}% 'Itüo-fias, -o-ias tfTtt»^ '0£etas, -tas T"rt" } Ovpetas FPTNl* 
'EAia-atos L. 4. 27 "^t?^ has undoubtedly l, and is also spelt with 
ci in B (only), just as B has «^apeto-atoi (Mc. 7. 1, 3, 5, A. 5. 34 
etc.), TakciXaia, -aios (Mc. 1. 14, 16, Jo. 7. I, A. 5. 37 etc.), Setva 
(G. 4. 24 f.), 2«a)i' (R. 9. 33 etc.). -apapeta follows the analogy of 
' AvTioxet-a, 'AAe£dVopeia etc., and must therefore retain et in our 
spelling of it, 2 although the inhabitant is called Sa/xaprV^s, as the 
inhabitant of Mapwveta is Mapcovtrr/s. 

5. With regard to Greek words and names, the following must be 
noted for the correct discrimination between et and 1 : oiKTipw, not 
-et'pco (cp. o'tKTipfios, -lpp.wv, which in B certainly also have et § 4, 2). 
'Ikoviov, not Eik. (r according to Etym. M. sub verbo, which, however, 
does not agree with the coins, which give 1 and et ; the mss. in 
A. 13, 51, 14. 1 also read t). pei'yvi'pt, epet£a etc., pet-ypa. tivw, 
Tewrto, eVeto"a. (£tAovi/<os, -vi/aa (from vik?^). 7ravotKet A. 16. 34 
(nAB 1 ^), 7ra/x7rA?;Öet L. 23. 1 8, see § 28, 7. There is considerable 
fluctuation in the language from the earliest times between -eta 
(proparoxyt.) and -id ; KaKoiradla Ja. 5. 10 (B X P) is the form 
attested also for Attic Greek; w<£eAeia, however (R. 3. 1, Jude 16), 
already existed in Attic beside <u<£eAta. The spelling o-Tparetas (B) 
2 C. 10. 4 cannot be invalidated on the ground that in Attic 
a-Tpareia c campaign ' and crrpaTid ' army ' are interchanged, and 
the one form stands for the other ; eVapxta ' province ' A. 25. 1 has 
for a variant not eVapx«a but 1) eVapx« ? (A, cp. n 1 ). Et is produced 
from r;t according to the later Attic usage (which converted every 
t)i into et) in the words Aet-ronpyds, -ta, -etv (orig. Atjit., then A?;t.), 
which were taken over from Attic, and in ßoi'Aei (L. 22. 42, the 
literary word = the colloquial 0eAets § 21, 7), whereas, in other cases 
ij in roots and in terminations (dat. 1st decl., conjunct., 2 sing, pass.) 
remained as e, and the use of the future for aor. conj. (§ 65, 2, 5) 
can on no account be explained by this Attic intermixture of the 

6. H in the language of the N.T., and also in the standard MSS., 
is in general far from being interchanged with 1. Xpno-Ttavot (and 
XpTjo-Tos) rests on a popular interpretation of the word, for in place 
of the unintelligible Xpio-rds the heathen (from whom the designation 
of the new sect as Xpj/o-r. proceeded) substituted the familiar 
Xpiyo-Tos, which had a similar sound ; the spelling of the word with 
ij (in the N.T. preserved in every passage by n 1 A. 11. 26, 26. 28. 
1 P. 4. 16) was not completely rejected even by the Christians, and 

1 W. H. Append. 155. B alone is consistent in reading Ovpetov Mt. 1. 6 
(the others -tov). In the case of 'Efe/cfas ITJDtn Mt. 1. 9 f. we have only 
the witness of D for -«- in the passage L. 3. 23 ff. , which it alters to correspond 
with Mt. However, is the analogy complete? C. I. Gr. 8613 also has 
'Edemas (-xtas) beside 'Iwtrdas. 

2 Cp. Herodian, Lentz, p. 279, 34. 

§ 3- 6-8.] ORTHOGRAPHY. g 

maintained its position for a very long time. 1 Kvprjvios for 
Quirinius L. 2. 2 may be explained in a similar way (by a connec- 
tion of it with KvprjVT}), but B and the Latin MSS. have Kvp(e)ivov 
Cyrino. 2 In L. 14. 13, 21 avdireipos for avcra-i/pos is attested by 
quite preponderating evidence (nABD al.), and is moreover men- 
tioned by Phrynichus the Atticist as a vulgar form. 8 e? p.i)v for ?j 
jx-qv H. 6. 14 (nABD 1 ) is attested also in the LXX. and in papyri 4 ; 
besides, all this class of variations belongs strictly to the province of 
correct pronunciation [orthoepy], and not to that of orthography. 
It is the same with the doubtful yi^w/T^s or yvp.vlrrj<i (yvp.viTevop.ev 
1 C. 4. 1 1, with rj L al., which, according to Dindorf in Steph. Thes., 
is the correct spelling), and o-tpuKivdiov semicindium A. 19. 12 (all 
MSS.), with which one might compare the comparatively early occur- 
rence of Sivdpia denarii 5 (N.T., however, always has Srjv.). All 
uncials have a-ipiKov sericum 6 Ap. 18. 12. The distinction made 
between «a/^Aos 'camel' and KapaXos 'rope' (Mt. 19. 24 etc., 
Suidas), appears to be a later artificiality. 

7. At a much earlier time than the interchange of -q - 1 begins that 
of cu - e (rj), appearing in passive verbal terminations already in the 
Hellenistic period, in the middle of a word before a vowel some- 
where about the second century A.D., and soon after universally, so 
that little confidence can be placed in our MSS. as a whole in this 
respect, though the oldest (D perhaps excepted) are still far more 
correct in this than in the case of et - 1. The question, therefore, 
whether, in obedience to these witnesses, Kepea is to be written for 
Kepaia, e£e<f>vr)s and the like, should not be raised ; the following 
may be specially noticed : AlXap.tTat A. 2. 9 (B correctly) 7 ; dvdyaiov 
Mc. 14. 15, L. 22. 12 (on quite overwhelming evidence); paiSy 
raeda Ap. 18. 13 (all uncials pe8i]) ; (paiXov-qs paenula (the Greek 
form: strictly it should be cpaii'oX-qs) 2 Tim. 4. 13 (e all uncials 
except L) ; but o-vKopopea (A al. -oua) L. 19. 4 (from o-vKop.opov, 
formation like p.-qXea from p/qXov). 

8. The diphthong vc is already from early times limited to the 
case where it is followed by another vowel, and even then it is 
contracted in Attic Greek from the fifth century onwards into v ; 
it reappears, however, in Hellenistic Greek, being frequently indeed 

1 See Hermes xxx. 465 ff. 

2 Cp. Dittenberger, Herrn, vi. 149. In Joseph, also the majority of the mss. 
have -Tjvios : to which add Map/cos Kvpr)i>ws C. I. A. iii. 599. 

3 Phryn. in Bk. Anecd. i. 9, 22, dvavripia 5ia tov 77 rr\v Trpuri'jv, ov dia rrjs ei 
öicpdöyyov, ü>s ol ä./u.aOeis (Tisch, ad loc. ). 

4 Blass, Ausspr. d. Gr. 33 3 , 77 (Aegypt. Urk. des Berl. Mus. 543). 

5 Ibid. 37, 94. 

6 Cp. (W. -Schm. § 5, 14) cnpiKoiroiüs (so for -ös) Neapolitan inscription, Inscr. 
Gr. It. et Sic. 785, to which siricarium and holosiricum are given as parallel 
forms in Latin Inscr. (Mommsen). 

7 From At\äfi D^'j? ; see Euseb. Onomast. ed. Larsow-Parthey, p. 22. Yet 
according to Könneke (sub verbo 13) the LXX. have Al\dß and 'EXa/urai. side 
by side. 

IO ORTHOGRAPHY. [§ 3. 8-10. 

written (in inscriptions and papyri) vei, i.e. ii-i, whereas on the 
other hand the inflexion -via, -vltjs (§7, 1) implies that the t is not 
pronounced. The uncial MSB. of the N.T. write it throughout; it 
sometimes occurs in the word-division in B that the first scribe 
divides v\lov x ; A has occasionally what comes to the same thing, vi'os. 
The diphthong wi> is non-existent (as also in Attic it may be said 
not. to occur) ; Mowcr^s is a trisyllable, and consequently to be 
written Mwücr?/?. 

9. Consonants. Z - <r. — The spelling £ß, fa in place of <rß, o-p. is 
widely disseminated in the Hellenistic and Roman period, in order 
to indicate the soft sound which cr has in this position only. This (, 
however, is found far more rarely in the middle than at the beginning 
of a word. In the N.T. the MSS. have Zpvpva Ap. 1. 11, 2. 8 (n, 
Latt. partly ; but favpva has little support, as D Mt. 2. 1 1, a-favpvujs 
«Jo. 19. 39); (ßewvvai 1 Th. 5. 19 (B^FG). 

10. Single and double consonant. — With regard to the writing 
of a single or double consonant much obscurity prevails in the Roman 
period. The observance of the old-Greek rule, that p, if it passes 
from the beginning to the middle of a word (through inflexion or 
composition), preserves the stronger pronunciation of the initial letter 
by becoming doubled, 2 is even in Attic Greek not quite without 
exceptions ; in the later period the pronunciation itself must have 
changed, and the stronger initial p approximated to the weaker medial 
p, so that even a reduplication with p was now tolerated (pepavTicrphos 
§ 15, 6). The rule cannot be carried out in the N.T. without doing 
great violence to the oldest MSS., although, on the other hand, 
in these also there are still sufficient remnants of the ancient 
practice to be found : thus all MSS. have epprjgev L. 9. 42,- ippeöij 
Mt. 5. 21, 27 etc. (always in these words, § 16, 1), see Gregory 
Tisch, iii. 121 ; appioo-Tos always, app-qros 2 C. 12. 4, xtipdppovs Jo. 
18. 1 etc.; on the other hand, apa<£os Jo. 19. 23 (pp B), kiripaTTTti Mc. 
2. 21 (pp B 2 KMUr), a.T7opi\pavTe<; A. 27. 43 nC etc. But while 
this matter too belongs to orthography, the spelling pp recommends 
itself as a general principle. Trapt-ja-ia is wrong, since it is assimilated 
from 7rav-py]cria {Traprfcr. B 1 Mc. 8. 3 2, and passim; also «DL sometimes, 
see Tisch.) 3 ; dppaßwv (a borrowed Semitic word) has the metrical 
prosody — — — guaranteed and the doubling of the consonant estab- 
lished in its Semitic form (dpaß. 2 C. 1. 22 wAFGL, 5. 5 «DE, 
E. 1. 14 FG), cp. also Lat. arrha.* 

In the case of the other liquids and all the mutes there are only 
isolated instances. ßaXXdvriov, not ßaXdvriov, is shown on quite 

1 Teschendorf , N.T. Vat., p. xxviii. 4. There seem to have been people 
who thought themselves bound, for correctness' sake, to pronounce hii-i-os, 
mil-i-a, in three syllables ; cp. Cramer, Anecd. Oxon. III. 251. 

2 Even the initial p in Att. inscr. is occasionally written pp ('E^t;^. dpxaioX. 
1889, p. 49 ff. ß, 20 äpTTj/xara ppvfioh). 

3 Evidence for p from inscr. and papyri in W.-Schm. § 5, 26 b. 

4 äppaß. C. I. Gr. ii. 2058, B. 34, äpaß. Papyrus Notices and Extr. 
xviii. 2, 344 (W.-Schm. ibid, c) ; but pp Berl. Aeg. Urk. 240, 6. 

§ 3- 10-12.] ORTHOGRAPHY. \ i 

preponderating MS. evidence to be correct, and the orthography is 
also vouched for on metrical grounds. QvyeXos 2 Tim. 1. 15 C«D 
etc., -eAAos A : the single letter appears to be the better spelling. 1 
In papuvds SWTftTO the duplication of the p has very slender attest- 
ation. ewevrJKovTa, eWa-ros are wrong ; ykwt-jjxa for living creatures 
is correct (ytwdv, yevvdcrdai), for products of the field incorrect, 
since these are termed ykv-qpa from yiveo-ßai Mt. 26. 29, Mc. 14. 25, 
L. 12. 18 etc. This rests on quite preponderant evidence, which 
is confirmed by the papyri. 2 On x^( J/ ) v<0 > ktwwu see § 17. In 
Tcoavjys the single v is attested by the almost universal evidence of 
B, frequently also by that of D (nearly always in Luke and Acts) ; 
the word belongs to the series of Hellenised names (§ 10, 2), which 
treat the an of the Hebrew termination as a variable inflection, 
whereas the interpretation of 'Iwavv^s as from 'Iwa^av-^s (W.-Schm. 
§ 5, 26 c) affords no explanation whatever for the -t]s. 3 On the other 
hand, "Avva H2H is correct, and 'Iwdvva (Aram. "jHI 1 , cp. "jUSlIIJ 
Sowawa, Mapiafi = Mapia/^ of Josephus) is also explicable (L. 8. 3 
with v BD: 24. 10 with v only DL) ; the masc. "Awas (for ^H 
Hebr., "Avavo? Joseph.) might be influenced by the analogy of 
"Awa. — Mutes : KpdßäTos appears to be commended by Lat. grabätus, 
and the duplication of the ß (introduced by the corrector in B) is 
accordingly incorrect in any case ; but for the tt there is the greatest 
MS. authority (for which « has kt ; the single r in B 1 only at Mc. 
2. 4). Cp. W.-Schm. § 5, note 52. 'loTnrr/ is the orthography of the 
N.T. (1 Mace.) ; elsewhere 'IöV?7 preponderates (W.-Schm. § 5, 
note 54). 

11. Doubling of the aspirate. — The aspirate, consisting of Tenuis 
+ Aspiration, in correct writing naturally doubles only the first 
element, k\, t0, 7r<£ ; but at all times, in incorrect writing, the two 
are doubled, X X> ee > H>- So N - T - 'A<£<£ta for 'Air<pia (§ 6, 7) 
Philem. 2 D 1 ; 'Zd^fapa A. 5. 1 DE (but o-a7r^)(e)tpos Ap. 21. 19 
in all MSS.); e$<£a#a or -eda Mc. 7. 34 nearly all : especially widely 
extended is ~Ma6daios (in the title to the Gospel nBD) ; Maööias 

A. 1. 23, 26 B X D; Ma66dv Mt. 1. 15 B(D); Ma6da6 (-aaO, -ar) 

L. 3. 29 «iß 1 . 

12. Assimilation. — Much diversity in writing is occasioned in 
Greek (as also in Latin) at all periods by the adoption or omission 
of the assimilation of consonants, which clash with each other by 
reason of their juxtaposition within a word. In the classical period 
the assimilation is often further extended to independent contiguous 
words, and many instances of this are still preserved in the oldest 
mss. of the Alexandrian period ; there are a few remnants of it in the 
MSS. with which we are commonly dealing, including those of the 

1 <t>vy<f\ios (Gentile noun?), C. I. Gr. ii. 3027 cited by W.-Schm. ibid. d. 

2 Ibid, a ; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 105 f. 

3 The inscription, C. I. Gr. 8613 (under a statue of Hippolytus) has 'ludpTjs ; 
similarly Inscr. Gr. It. et Sic. 1106 (end of fourth century) ; otherwise -w- has 
most support in (later) inscriptions. 

12 ORTHOGRAPHY. [§3.12-13. 

N.T.: e/i fiary Ap. 1. 13, 2. 1 etc. AC, H. 2. 12 AP, Mt. 18. 2, 
L. 18. 20 LA etc.; trv/jL Mapidp. L. 2. 5 AE al. ; crvp irda-iv 24. 21 
EG al. ; ly yacrrpl L. 21. 23 A. The later period, on the other 
hand, in accordance with its character in other matters (cp. §§ 5, 1 ; 
28, 8), was rather inclined to isolate words and even the elements of 
words ; hence in the later papyri the prepositions kv and <rvv remain 
without assimilation even in composition, and so also in the old MSS. 
of the N.T., but this more often happens with true than with h, see 
W. H. App. 149 f., W.-Schm. § 5, 25 1 . 'E£ is everywhere assimilated 
to the extent that it loses the o- before consonants, both in composi- 
tion and as a separately-written word; but the Attic and Alexandrian 
writers went further, and assimilated the guttural, so that ey was 
written before mediae and liquids, ex before 6 and 4>. But the MSS. of 
the N.T. are scarcely acquainted with more than l£ and e'/c; for tKyova 
1 Tim. 5. 4 D 1 has eyyova (i.e. eggona, not engona, Blass, Ausspr. 123 :3 ), 
d-ireySvcra B* Col. 2. II ; aviy Xnrros D L. 12. ^^. We naturally 
carry out our rule consistently. 

13. Transcription of Semitic words. — In the reproduction of 
adopted Semitic words (proper names in the main) the MSS. occa- 
sionally show an extraordinary amount of divergence, which is partly 
due to the ignorance of the scribes, partly also, as must be admitted, 
to corrections on the part of persons who thought themselves better 
informed. Thus the words on the cross in Mt. 27. 46 run as follows 
in the different witnesses : ^Aei - a^Ai (d?}Ai) - eAw(e)i(//,), Xepa - Aypa 
— A(e)t//.a — Xapa, cra.ß<x^d<xv(e)i, — (raßaKTavet, — £a</>öavei (crat^ö. ) ; in 
Mc. 15. 34 eAü)(e)i — eXiog — ?/A(e)i, Xepa — Xap(^p)a — A(e)i/xa, (ra.ßa^d.— 
(TaßaKT.-a-ißaKdav€t-(a(ßa)(f36aveL. Grammar, however, is not con- 
cerned with individual words, but only with the rules for the tran- 
scription of foreign sounds, which are the same for the N.T.' as for 
the LXX. 2 The following are not expressed : j*> n> H> "> with 
some exceptions, where n is represented by x> as ^ a XV^- rü"^, 
'Axa£ tfiX, Xappdv "pHj 7racrxa S*n3S, 2rH varies between 'Fa^dß 
Mt. 1. 5, Taa/? H. 11. 31, Ja. 2. 25 ; and m j by y, as Topoppa »TT/25?, 
Vdtjx fW; 'AxeASe/xax A. 1. 19 is strange for ^"O" ^pjl (cp. Sipax 
tf'TD). 3 — 1 and "\ = 1 and v ; the latter (a half- vowel, our w, not our v) 
blends with the preceding vowel to form a diphthong : Acu>tS, Era, 
Aevi's, Niveinrou L. 11. 32 4 ; cp. with this -«ems A. 19. 14 if this 
= Lat. Scaeva. .3, 2, n = X> </>> ^ ^ ns w^h aspiration, except when 
two aspirates would stand in adjacent syllables, in which case the 
Greeks differentiate also in native words ; so 7r<xo-xa (Joseph, has 
V. 1. cpacrKa : cp. LXX. T1H133 = Uaa-\iop and <f?a<T(rovp), Kacpapvaovp 
ÜITÜ "133 («BD Mt. 4. 13, 11. 23 etc., later MSS. Kairepv., see 

1 ira\it>yeve<rla Mt. 19. 28 NB'CDE etc., Tit. 3. 5 «ACDEFG. 

2 Cp. C. Konneke in Progr. von Stargard, 1SS5. 

3 Reproduction of the guttural by prefixing a is seen in d^Xt Mt. 27. 46 (see 
above) L (Euseb.), SaOava-f/X ^WTO, LXX. 'Aepftdv itoTfl, 'AevSup ~\Hl yy. 

4 Another reading Sive vr) (male -evi). 

§ 3- 13-14, § 4- 1.] DIVISION OF WORDS. I3 

Tisch, on Mt. 4. 13), Krj^ds. But n is also represented by r, as in 
a-dßßarov 213123 ; cp. 'Aa-rdpTr], likewise admitted into the language 
at an early date ; 2"iZH£ becomes, in L. 4. 26, ^dpen-ra in nAB^D 
al., ^apec}y8a B 2 KLM ; there is fluctuation also between Na^eö, 
-/3€T, -pa.{6), where the corresponding Semitic form is uncertain. 
Ttvv^o-apeß, -per in Mt. 14. 34, Mc. 6. 53, L. 5. 1, is incorrect, D in 
Mt., Mc. correctly Yewrja-ap ; in 'EXuraßW, -ßh the t corresponds 
to Semitic 3?, 2?212rpS. On the other hand p, a are rendered by the 
tenues k, t, 1 while ir is almost entirely absent from Semitic words. 
Sibilants : ö it 123 = o-, T = ( (with the value of French z), but V21 
Mt. 1. 5 Boes «B, Boos C, Boo£ EKLM al.; lITSi (Wom-os. On 
"A^wtos *n~125a see § 6, 7. 

14. In Latin words it must be noted that qui is rendered by kv. 
aquilo olkvXwv (§ 28, 3) ; Kvpivios Quirinius sup. 6 ; likewise qua, 
by ko : quadrans KoSpdvTrjs. U is ov : kovo-twSiol Mt. 27. 65, 'Pottos; 
but also v : KevTvptwv Mc. 15. 39. 2 On i = e see § 6, 3. 


1. In the time of the composition of the N.T. and for long after- 
wards the division of words was not generally practised, although 
grammarians had much discussion on the subject of the position 
of accents and breathings, as to what might be regarded as ev /*epos 
tov Xoyov and what might not. It is absent from the old MSS., and 
moreover continues to be imperfect in the later mss. down to the 
15th century. Of course it is the case with Greek as with other 
languages — the controversy of the grammarians shows it — that the 
individuality of separate words was not in all cases quite strictly 
established : words that were originally separate were by degrees 
blended together in such a way that it is not always perceptible 
at Avhat point in the development the separation came absolutely 
to an end. One indication of the fact that the blending has been 
completed is when the constituent parts can no longer be separated 
by another word : 6Vav Se, not 6Ve 8' dv is the correct expression, 
whereas o? 8' dv is employed ; in the N.T. we also have wa-avrws 8i 
Mc. 14. 31, L. 20. 31, K. 8. 26 (on the other hand Homer has cos S' 
airrtos, which is still met with in Herodotus and Attic writers) 3 ; to 
8' avro, tw yap avru are still retained in the N.T. On the same 
principle the following e.g. form one word : 6'0-Tts (still separable in 
Attic), KatTrep, tolvvv, p.evroi, ov8e, ovre, ov8eTrore, ovira) (the two last 
separable in Att.), pJ]ri and p/Tiye, wo-«, wcnrep, uxrirepet, in the N.T. 

1 Exception : aaßax&avi (see above) '3np3», in which case, however, there is 
a reverse change by assimilation to -ktcli>i. 

2 Dittenberger, Hermes vi. 296. 

3 Even as late as Philodem. p-qrop. ii. 97, Sudhaus. 


also indisputably ovSeis, p-r/Seis, where oi'6" i(f>' evos can no longer, as 
in Att., take the place of iV ovSevos etc. A second criterion is 
afforded by the new accent for the combined words : €7re«eii/a 
(virepexeLva) from eV «Keiva, ouSei's from ovS 1 eis, €K7raAcu (eKTore) from 
€K 7raAat (e'/c tote) ; a third by the new signification of the com- 
pound : irapa)(pi)ixo. is no longer identical with 7rapa \pi\p.a, KadoXov 
is different from ko.6' SXov, the origin of e^cun^s in e'£ avn)s tt/s cöpas 
and of Ivari in iW ti ykvrjTai is obscured. All this, however, by no 
means affords a universally binding rule, not even the absence of 
the first indication of blending ; for in that case one would have to 
write e.g. 6's T19 in Attic. So also in the N.T. Tovrea-n 'that is' 
is not proved to be erroneous by the occurrence of a single instance 
of TovTo 8e eo-Ti (R. 1. 12), but it certainly does prove that it is not 
the necessary form. In most cases it looks strange for preposi- 
tions before adverbs to appear as separate words, because the 
independent notion of the preposition is lost : therefore we have 
eVavü), VTroK&Tü), kwavpiov ' to-morrow,' airkvavri, Kadaira^, virtpXiav, 
virep( K eK)iTe.pi<T(TC)<i l ; still cbr' aprt ' from henceforth ' appears to be 
correct, also e<p' ä-n-ag ' once for all,' ' at once,' cf. ejrt rpt's. On ko.9' 
€i<s, Kara eh see § 51, 5; virepzyu (Lachm. 2 C. 11. 23) is clearly 
an impossibility, as the sense is, I (subject) am so more than they 

2. The system of symbols for reading purposes (accents, breathings, 
etc.), developed by the Alexandrian grammarians, was in the first 
instance only employed for the text of poetry written in dialect, and 
was not carried out in ordinary prose till the times of minuscule 
writing.- With regard to accents, we have to apply the traditional 
rules of the old grammarians to the N.T. as to other literature, 
except in so far as an accentuation is expressly stated to be Attic 
as opposed to the Hellenistic method, or where we notice in the 
later form of the language a prosody different from that of the 
earlier language, which necessitates a different accent. Peculiar 
to Attic is the accentuation Sterns etc., in N.T. accordingly SutSjs; 
also /xwpos for /xwpos, a^peios for a^peios (whereas ipfjpos, erotp-os, 
np,olos were the ancient forms, and foreign to the koiv?/ 3 ), Ipavro*; 
for i/Aai/Tos with a different prosody, x'Aiaowv for -dSiov, imperat. 
I8e Xaßk for i'Se Xäße. On the other hand we are informed by 
Herodian that IxOvs -vv, oacpvs -vv were the ordinary, not a 
peculiarly Attic accentuation. One characteristic of the later 
language is the shortening of the stem-vowel in words in -p.a., as 
9ep.a, 7ro/m (§ 27, 2), therefore KÄ/px, Kpip,a also are paroxytone, 

1 Also virepeKvepLircrov E. 3. 20, 1 Th. 3. IO (5. 13, v.l. -crQs) always presents 
a single idea, and is completely held together by vwep. Cp. § 28, 2. 

2 It is true that Euthalius already used those symbols in his edition of the 
N.T. writings ( W.-Schm. 6, 1, note 1), and they are also found in individual 
uncials dating from the 7th century (Gregory Tisch, iii. 99 f. ) : in B they 
originate from a corrector of the 10th or 11th century. 

3 According to Herodian's words (irepl fiovripovs X^ews, 938 L. ) one would 
have concluded that ZpTjßos, Ztoi/jlos were peculiar to late Attic ; however, 
modern Greek also has ^pr^os (romance lang, ermo etc., Dietz, Etymol. Worterb. 
d. rora. Spr. I. sub verb.) ^rot/uos, 8/j.oios, but dxpeios. 

§ 4- 2-3.] A CCENTS—BREA THINGS. 1 5 

not KA?/xa, Kpi/ia ; but xp' "^" is not analogous to these (cp. xp^tos), 
and is even written xp €t0 "p a i n B 1 (1 J°- 2. 20, 27). Also 7rv6yos 
for Trvlyos, ptyos for ptyos are attested as vulgar forms (Lobeck, 
Phryn. 107), but there is no reason to infer from these that i/a'xos 
is the N.T. form of i/^x 05 - Herodian informs us that the shortening 
of 1 and v before £ was the general rule, hence we get QijXl^, Ki)pv£, 
Kr)pv£a.L ; but we have no ground whatever for extending this rule 
to 1 and v before \p, and B has 6\ei\pis, hence accent 6Xl\J/ls ; similarly 
plxpav (peiipav B) from plTTTU), whereas the prosody of kvtttw is not 
established, and the accent of Kvxpau is therefore equally uncertain. 
Kpd£(D, Kpa£ov ; rpißw, erplxj/a etc. (with et before ^ in B and the 
Herculanean rolls), therefore a-wTtTplfydat Mc. 5. 4 (crwrerpeL^dai 
B). In am Aos ' spot ' the quantity of the t is unattested, except 
indirectly by B, which throughout has a-n-iXos, acnrtXo?, cnriXow • this 
proves that it is not o-7riAos. In oiktio/awv, oiKTip/zos, in which B 
has ei in almost all cases (contrary to all analogy : the words occur 
in the old dialects), the accent does not enter into the question. 
Ta(o(ßvXdKtov, not -eiov, is the constant form in B, and is also made 
probable by the analogy of such words as reAwviov, fivpoTrwXiov ; 
ei'SüjAiov (§ 27, 3) has also better attestation in the N.T. («AB etc.) 
than -dov. In Latin proper names the quantity of the vowel in 
Latin is the standard for determining the accent. This is definitely 
fixed for Marcus, Priscus, quärtus ; hence Mapwos, Kpto-Tros^Kom/oTos; 
but 2eKoi'vSos or SeKOfvSos. In spite of everything there remains 
considerable doubt in the accentuation, since the accents of the MSS. 
are not altogether decisive ; everything connected with the Hebrew 
proper names is completely uncertain, but there is also much uncer- 
tainty in the Greek and Grecised names. 

3. The same principle must be followed for determining the 
breathing, yet with somewhat greater deference to the mss., not so 
much to the actual symbols employed by them, as to the writing 
with aspirate or tenuis in the case of the elision of a vowel or in the 
case of ovk, ovx- It is established from other sources as well that 
the rough breathing in the Hellenistic language did not in all cases 
belong to the same words as in Attic ; the MSS. of the N.T. have 
a place among the witnesses, although to be sure some of these, such 
as D of the Gospels and Acts, are generally untrustworthy in the 
matter of tenuis or aspirate, and they are never agreed in the 
doubtful cases. Smooth for rough breathing is especially strongly 
attested in Jo. 8. 44 ow eo-TrjKev (nB x DLX al.), which might be a 
newly-formed perfect of «rr^v, and not an equivalent for eW^Kev 
' stands,' see § 23, 6. The rough breathing is abundantly vouched 
for in certain words that originally began with a digamma : IXirte, 
IXirft« («£' eXTTiSt) A. 2. 26 «CD, R 8. 20 «B^FG, 1 C. 9. 10 
in the first occasion only FG, in the second only A. B. 4. 18 
C^FG, 5. 2 DTG, Tit. 1. 2 D 1 ttv FG), 3. 7 Ka ff FG ( K ara D), 
A. 26. 6 no attestation. a<£eA7rt£ovTes DP L. 6. 35 (dcf>eXTriKm 

1 B has Kpeicriros, also in some places the equally correct forms UpelaKa, 

1 6 BREATHINGS. [§4-3-5. 

Herrn. Vis. iii. 12. 2 **) ; there is also one example of this from Attic 
Greek, another from Hellenistic, the Greek O.T. supplies several. 1 
— I8eiv: etyiSco Ph. 2. 23 nAB^FG, e^tSc A. 4. 29 ADE, etfxlScv 
L. 1. 25 DW C A(X), oi x l8ov A. 2. 7 »DE, ov\ ISoires 1 P. 1. 8 B 1 
which also has ovx elSov G. 1. 19; many examples of d<f>-, e<£-, ko.6- 
in O.T. 2 The form iSios often attested in inscriptions 3 exists in 
ko.6' ISiav Mt. 14. 23 D (ibid. 13 all have Kar'), 17. 19 B X D, 
20. 17 B 1 , 24. 3 NB\ Mc. 4. 34 BH)A, 6. 31 B 1 (not 32); in B 1 
again in 9. 28, 13. 3 (elsewhere B also kut'). 'E$iop/o/o-as Mt. 5. 33N 
(widely extended, Phryn. p. 308 Lob., from eiriopK. 4 ) ; but eVos (kot' 
eVos L. 2. 41, Hellenistic often cVos) does not appear in the N.T. 
with the rough breathing. Sporadic instances like ovk evpov, ovx 
'dvtKev, oi>x 6\fea-6e (Gregory Tisch, iii. 90) must be regarded as 
clerical errors ; ovx oAiyos, however (where there is no former 
digamma in question), is not only a good variant reading in nearly 
all the passages in the N.T. (A. 12. 18 »A, 14. 28«, 17. 4 B*, 
19. 23 nAD, 19. 24 «, 27. 20 A ; elsewhere only 15. 2, 17. 12), but 
is found also in the LXX. and the papyri. 5 

4. A difficult, indeed insoluble, question is that concerning the 
use of rough or smooth breathing in Semitic words, especially proper 
names. The principle carried out by Westcott and Hort appears to 
be rational, namely, of representing j* and 'j by the smooth breath- 
ing, n and rt by the rough, a practice which gives us many strange 
results : 'AßeX (n), 'AAcpcuos (n), Ei'a (n), "Awa (n), and 'Avavia? 
(n), dAA?;Aouta (n), but 'E/?pcuos ('j). The MS. evidence, on the 
other hand, is deserving of little confidence in itself, and these 
witnesses are anything but agreed among themselves ('Ho-aias - 'Ho-., 
'Aßpadix-'Aßp., 'HAias-'HA. etc.). Initial 1 must, when repre- 
sented by 1, receive the smooth breathing, except where Hellenisation 
connects the Hebrew with a Greek word with a rough breathing : 
'lepoo-oXvfxa (but 'lepovo-aXijfi, 'Iepiy^j in accordance with the rule). 
Ho-aias has dropped the 1 (so also Aram. ar"1ÖK)- 

5. Of the remaining symbols, the familiar signs for long and short 
in unfamiliar words might in many cases be employed with advan- 
tage, so 1 in Semitic words as an equivalent for the et of the mss. 
(§ 3, 4). The marks of diaeresis, which from a very early time 
were made use of to indicate a vowel which began a syllable, 
especially 1 or v, are necessary or useful in cases where the t or v 
might be combined Avith a preceding vowel to form a diphthong : 
'Aya'ia, AyaiVcds, 'EßpaicrTi, UroXefiats, Tcuos (the last name was still 

1 Gregory, p. 91 ; W.-Schm. § 5, 10 a ; A. Thumb, Spir. asper (Strassburg, 
1889), p. 65, 71. 

2 Gregory, ibid., Thumb 71. 

8 Thumb, ibid. 

4 Ibid. 72. 

8 Berl. Aeg. Urk. No. 72 ; W.-H. 143. Elsewhere however, as in No. 2, oiic 
6\. and N.T. in' okLya D Mt. 25. 21, 23. 

6 Cp. Gregory, 106 f. Jerome in his explanation of Biblical names avowedly 
brings «Piny under one head, and never writes h for any of these letters. 


a trisyllable in Latin when the literature was at its prime). 1 In 
Semitic names, moreover, it is often a question what is a diphthong 
and what is not ; the use of the marks of diaeresis in ancient MSS. 
(as in D Xopo^aiV, Brjdcra'iSa) and the Latin translation can guide 
us here, thus 'Wo-cu Jessae (-e), 'E<£pcu/x Ephraem (-em, also NL in 
Jo. 11. 54 -efi), 2 but KaiV, NaiV, Ho-auxs, Bijßa-ai8d(v), although in 
the case of Kouvav, in spite of the Latin ai and of Ka'ivav in D, 
according to the primary Semitic form (^"p) al appears to be 
more correct. 3 

On Kai(a)c£as Caiphas it is difficult to make any assertion; 4 on 
Mwi'o-vys see § 3, 8. The hypodiastole may be employed in o, n for 
distinction, though o n may likewise be written (but 6'o-tis). 

6. As regards punctuation, it is certain that the writers of the N.T. 
were acquainted with it, inasmuch as other writers of that time 
made use of it, not only in MSS., but frequently also in letters and 
documents ; but whether they practised it, no one knows, and 
certainly not how and where they employed it, since no authentic 
information has come down to us on the subject. The oldest 
witnesses (tf and B) have some punctuation as early as the first- 
hand ; 5 in B the higher point on the line (o-Ti-y/r^) is, as a rule, 
employed for the conclusion of an idea, the lower point (yTrocmyiirj 
viz. AYTON.) where the idea is still left in suspense. One very 
practical contrivance for reading purposes, which (although often 
imperfectly executed) meets us e.g. in D of the Gospels and Acts, 
and in D (Claromont.) of the letters of St. Paul, and which Euthalius 
about the middle of the 5th century employed in his editions of 
New Testament writings, is the writing in sense-lines (o-ti'xoi), the 
line being broken off at every, even the smallest, section in the train 
of ideas, which required a pause in reading. 6 Later editors are 
compelled to give their own punctuation, and therewith often 
enough their own interpretation : this they do very decidedly when 
they put signs of interrogation (which in the MSS. are not earlier 
than the 9th century) in place of full stops. Economy in the use of 
punctuation is not to be commended : the most correct principle 
appears to be to punctuate wherever a pause is necessary for reading 

1 As proved by Fr. Allen, Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. ii. (Boston, 1891), 
71 ff. 

2 \gV.l L. 4. 27 is TSaipav (-as) in «ABCDKL, hence X Ne/icu/, Latt. (some) 
Neman ; but Nee/uav EFM al. and other Latt. ; the remaining Latt. Naaman. 

3 Kaivaß or -vav without the marks of diaer. both B and K ; B always 
Br]daa.i5a.{v), & partly (in three instances) -<ra.l'5a(i>), partly -<Taida(i>) (three 
instances also) ; Hccuas B mostly (except R. 9. 22, 29, 10. 16, 20), N nine 
times Hcraias, ten times Htraias ; but NaiV, KaiV KB constantly. 

4 For Kanakas D and most Latt. have Katjas (Kae«t>., Ktj<j>.) ; Kaia^as is also 
found in Josephus. The Semitic spelling is N3'p (not ND'3 = Kt]<pds). 

5 Gregory, 345, 348. Tischendorf, N.T. Vat. xix. ff. 

6 See Gregory, 113 ff. 

!8 ELISION. [§5-1-2. 


1. It is in keeping with the tendency to a greater isolating of 
individual words, which we have mentioned above (§ 3, 12) as 
characteristic of the language of the period, that only a very 
moderate use is made in the N.T., according to the ms. evidence 
which may here be relied on, of the combination of words by means 
of the ousting (elision) or blending (crasis) of the concluding vowel 
(or diphthong) of a word. This tendency was carried so far, that 
even in compound words the final vowel of the first component part 
was not elided (Ttrpa.-dpyT)% in the N.T., in later Greek 6p.o-ovo-ios ; 
§ 28, 8). 1 In no case does elision take place in noun or verb forms ; 
even in the verse of Menander, 1 C. 15. 33, there is no necessity 
whatever to write xp^o-d' 6/j.iX.lai for xp 7 l°" ra "V- f° r the sake of the 
verse, since the writing with elision or in full (plene, the regular 
Latin usage) was always, even in verse, quite a matter for individual 
opinion with the ancients. The only case where a pronoun suffers 
elision is tout' 4'oti or Tom-ecm (§ 4, 1); so that it is particles alone 
which are still coupled together with comparative frequency with 
other Avords, though here also the elision might be much more 
abundant than it is. 2 'AAAa, according to Gregory, out of 345 cases 
where a vowel follows, undergoes elision in 215 (in these statistics it 
must, however, be remembered that the standard mss. are far from 
being always in agreement) ; before articles, pronouns, and particles 
it shows a greater tendency to combine than before nouns and verbs. 
Ac : 8' av frequently, otherwise combination hardly ever takes 
place (Ph. 2. 18 Se avTo «BP, 8' avro ACDE al.). Ov8' av H. 8. 4, 
ov8' ov Mt. 24. 21, H. 13. 5, <ruS' outws 1 C. 14. 21, ov8' on R. 9. 7 ; 
in oi'S' Iva H. 9. 25, C deviates from the rest with oi8k ; the scriptio 
plena is more widely attested in oi58' el A. 19. 2, ov8' rj H. 9. 18; 
elsewhere the final vowel remains. Te, oüVe, p/tc, dpa, dpa, äpa etc. 
are not subject to elision. In prepositions, elision very seldom 
takes place where a proper name follows; even on inscriptions of an 
earlier time there was a preference for preserving the names 
independent and recognisable by writing the preposition in full. 
On the other hand, there was a tendency to elision in the case 
of current phrases, and where a pronoun followed : dn dpx^js, dir' 
dpn, a7r' avrov, utt' ep.ov, or aiiTW, Kar' ep.e, kcit (kccÖ ) iStav, Kar 
oiKov, /act' ip.ov, Trap' Sv, v<f> i)p,wv (lyuoi/), vtt' ovSevos (1 C. 2. 15). 
'AvTt undergoes elision only in dvd' S>v; elision is most frequent with 
8ta (because there were already two vowels adjacent to each other), 
thus 81 vTrop.ov7J<; R. 8. 25, St' io-oTrrpov 1 C. 13. i2 j but with 
proper names 8id 'Itjo-ou R. 16. 27, 81a 'Ho-atov Mt. 8. 17 (before 
'Aßpadp. H. 7. 9 Sia and 81' are both attested). 

2. The use of crasis is quite limited in the N.T. In the case of 
the article, which affords so many instances in Attic Greek, there 

1 See Gregory, 113 ff. 

2 Gregory, 93 ff. Zimmer, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Th., 1881, 487 ff; 1882, 340 ff. 


occur only the following in the N.T. : Tovvavriov 2 C. 2. 7, G. 2. 7, 
1 P. 3. 9 (stereotyped as a single word, hence tow. Se) ; rowop 
'by name' Mt. 27. 57 (D to ovo pa) ; Kara. ravra, {yäp) L. 6. 23, 26, 
17. 30, but even in this phrase (which is equivalent to a single word) 
there is not wanting strong attestation for tcL avra} With ko.C the 
crasis is constant in ko.v= ' if it be but,' fairly constant in ko.v = ( even 
if' (but Kav for koX kav 'and if' is only sporadically found) ; in most 
places there is preponderating evidence for Kayu>, xdpoi, Kape, KaKeivos, 
/v-aKet(^ei'). 2 Thus /ecu is only blended with the following word, if it 
be a pronoun or a particle : there appears to be no thought of writ- 
ing KaAeyev and the like. 3 

3. The variable v after 1 and e at the end of a word became more 
and more firmly established in Attic Greek in the course of time, as 
the inscriptions show, and so passed over into the Hellenistic 
language as the favourite termination, though modern Greek shows 
us that it subsequently disappeared again. In the standard MSS. of 
the N.T. it is but seldom wanting, whether a consonant or a vowel 
follow it, or the word stands at the end of a sentence ; the rule that 
the v should always be inserted before a vowel and always omitted 
before a consonant is indeed not without a certain ratio, and receives 
a certain amount of early support from the usage of the papyri, but 
as far as we know the rule was only formulated in the Byzantine 
era, and the instances where it is broken are quite innumerable. 4 
The v is wanting 5 occasionally after -e (L. 1. 3 e'So£e «BCD etc., 
-€v AEKSA), and in eariv, somewhat more often after the -0-1 of the 
plural (xaAwo-i most MSS. Mc. 2. 4, e^owi L. 16. 29, npwo-i twice 
Jo. 5. 23), most frequently, comparatively speaking, after -o-t dat. 
plur.; irepvo-i 2 C. 8. 10, 9. 2 (D*FG irkpa-v, D b irkpia-v as elsewhere 
in MSS.), 6 and etKoo-t (12 exx. in N.T.) 7 remain free from it. 

4. The <r of otirctfs is also established, for the most part, in the 
N.T. before consonants as well as before vowels ; oiirw is only 
strongly attested in A. 23. 1 1 («AB before o-e), Ph. 3. 17 («ABD*FG 

1 In Acts 15. 27 there is for rä avrä a v.l. in D ravra (as tovto is sometimes 
read for to avrb). 1 Th. 2. 14 A ravra (with corouis). Ph. 3. 1 N*FGP ravra. 
1 P. 5. 9 all MSS. rä aura. With conjunction, to. yap avrd, to 8k aiV6 

2 The statistics are given in Gregory, 96 f.; Zimmer, I.e., 1881, 482. Kai iäv 
all MSS. in Mt. 5. 47, 10. 13 etc.; ko.v 'and if 'Mc' 16. 18, L. 13. 9 (D Kai eäv), 
6. 34 D, Ja. 5. 15 ; more often ' even if,' as Mt. 26. 35, Jo. 8. 14 (but in 16 only 
t* has Kav). 

5 Nor yet of äde\<pol, ä-rreaTaXfiivoi, which Holwerda conjectures in A. 28. 15, 
Jo. 1. 24, whereas his proposals in A. 22. 5 Kav (for Kai) ... i/napTvpei (B), Mt. 
12. 21 Kav (for Kai, = Kai ev), L. 18. 7 Kav (iaKpoOv/j.rj (for Kai p^-el) are more 
probable. But D* has Känedv/xeL in L. 15. 16. 

4 Kiihner-Blass, i. 3, i. 292. 

5 W. H. 146 ff.; Gregory, 97 ff. 

6 Hermas, Vis. iii. 10. 3 irepcrvvy H, irepiavvri as, = irepvaivri, but ii. 1. 1 irtpvai 
twice (once nepai N*). 

7 Ef/fout is generally without v on Attic inscriptions of the classical period, 
Hedde Maassen de litt. NT paragogica (Leipsic, 1881), p. 34, also in the mss. of 
authors like Strabo, Dionys. Halic, Athen, (even before a vowel), Lobeck, 
Pathol, ii. 156. 

20 SPORADIC SOUND-CHANGES. [§ 5. 4, § 6. 1. 

before Trepnrar.), H. 12. 21 (h*A before </>oßepöV), Ap. 16. 18 («AB 
before peyas). "Aj(/tH <md pexpi generally stand, as in Attic, even before 
a vowel without o-, according to the majority of the mss., but pexpi? 
aLfiaros H. 12. 4 (-pi D*), and more frequently pexpis ("X/ 3 ' 5 ) °^ 
Mc. 13. 30 (w-pt, D €ws), G. 3. 19, 4. 19, H. 3. 13 (axP 1 M), while in 
1 C. 11. 26, 15. 25 etc., the witnesses are divided. 'AvTiKphs Xiov 
A. 20. 15 'over against' (a late usage), Att. {Kar)avTiKpv (avTtKpvs 
in Attic = ' downright , ). 1 


1. General sound-changes in the language of the N.T. as opposed 
to Attic Greek do not openly present themselves, or at least are no 
longer apparent, being concealed by the older orthography, which 
either remained unaltered or was restored by the scribes (cp. § 3, 1). 
Of sporadic alterations which influenced the spelling as well as 
the pronunciation of words, the following are noteworthy : — 

A - E (au - ev). For ap we have ep in Ttcro-tpdKovTo (Ionic, mod. 
Gk., also papyri) in all cases according to the earliest evidence; 
also reaa-epa Jo. 19. 23 «ALM, Ap. 4. 6, A. 4. 9 nA etc.; but 
Tecro-apes, -dpotv, -apcri : Tecnxepas never, but in place of it -apes = 
accusative (see § 8, 2), so that we must give the regular inflection 
Tecrcrapes, -apa etc., to the N.T. writers ( = Ionic and mod. Gk. 
-epes, -epa etc.). 2 Ka#apt£eiv also frequently has ep in the MSS. 
(xadapos never; cp. also ptxrepos Clem, ad Cor. i. 14. 1, 30. 1 A): 
Mt. 8. 3 eKaOepta-Orj B*EL al. (ibid. Ka6apio-dt]Ti, 2 Kaßaptcrai all 
MSS.), Mc 1. 42 exadepco-Oi] AB*CG al. (4 1 Kadapiordrjri, 40 

xadaptcrai, 44 KaOapio-pLov all MSS.); elsewhere more often with 
-ep-, especially in A; 3 no possible paradigm results from this, -ap- 
must be written throughout. Cp. further ndVepa for -apa AC 
A. 21. 1. — Variation between ia-ie (va-vt): (jnd\t], uaXos, as in 
Attic (Ionic and Hellenistic <pie'A/>7, {SeAos Phryn. Lob. 309), x^' e po? 
Ap. 3. 16 only in«; vice versa, ap<£ia£ei B in L. 12. 28 for -e£et, 
-e vwo-iv see § 1 7. The vulgar term 7rtd£ü> ' seize ' (§ 24, Xtjctto- 
7riao-T7/s Papyr. Berl. Aeg. Mus. 325, 2), is derived from the Doric 
7ria£to = 7r<.e£a> 'press,' but has become differentiated from it (7re7rie- 
o-pei/os 'pressed down' L. 6. 38). — a and ev at the close of a word: 
eVexev (etV.) is Ionic and Hellenistic; the Attic eve/ca (§ 40, 6) cannot 
be tolerated except in A. 26. 21, where all the witnesses have it 
(speech of Paul before Agrippa, cp. § 1, 4 ; on the other hand in 
19. 32 -kol is only in «AB). 4 The Ionic and Hellenistic etrev for 
etVa is only found in Mc. 4. 28 nB*L ; eireirev nowhere (according to 
Phrynichus 124, Lob., both words are eVxarws ßdpßapa). For 
dyyapevu) (a word borrowed from Persian : so spelt in mod. Gk.), 

1 Apoc. Petr. 21, 26 [Kar)avTiKpin etcelvov, avruii', 29 KaravriKpv tovtuv. 

2 Gregory, 80. Buresch, Rh. Mus. xlvi. 217 f. 

3 Gregory, 82. Buresch, 219. 

4 EiVeKu Hermas, Vis. iii. 1. 9 «, but 2. 1 elveieev N, eVe/ca as, 5. 2 'evexev «, 
eVc/ca as. 


eyyap. Mt. 5. 41 «, Mc. 15. 21 K*B*. For AaXfxarlav 2 Tim. 4. 10, 
A Aep/*., C AeA//,. ; in Latin also we have Beim, side by side with 
Dalm. 1 ay for ey: ipawav for kptwav Jo. 5. 39 nB*, 7. 52 «B*T 
etc. («B* in general, AC occasionally), an Alexandrianism accord 
ing to Buresch, Bh. Mus. xlvi. 213 (lxx. «A generally, not BC). 2 

2. A - O, E - O. uaTpoAwas, //.^rpoAaias (§ 3, 3) were written 
instead of -aAoias, from dXo(i)äv 1 Tim. 1. 9 according to nADFGL, 
on the analogy of 7raTpo-KTöVos etc., when the formation of the 
words had been forgotten. Inversely, ßarraXo-yelv Mt. 6. 7 «B was 
written for ßarroX., cp. ßarrapifa (elsewhere in late writers only 
the form with o is found); pevavvKTiov Mc. 13. 35 only B*, L. 11. 5 
only D*, in A. 16. 25 and 20. 7 all MSS. //.ecrov- ; cp. pta-aurvXtov 
Lob. Phryn. 195. KoAoo-crat C. 1. 2 is read by nearly all MSS., 
but the title is 7rpös KoAao-o-aets in AB*K(«). Of course the text 
and the title, which certainly did not originate with the author, 
should be brought into agreement ; in favour of o we have the coins 
and nearly all the evidence of profane writers (-a- is a v.l. in 
Xenophon, Anab. i. 2. 6). — E - O : i£oXo6peveii> A. 3. 23 «B 3 EP al. 
(-e- AB*CD), SXoOpeveiu H. 11. 28 (-e- only ADE), dAofyewr/s 1 C. 
10. 10 (-€- D*[FG]). Thus the evidence is overwhelming for the 
second o, which has arisen from assimilation with the first o (as in 
ußoAos for ö/3eAds), this is also the popular spelling (mod. Gk. 
^oXodp(vu)); side by side with it ö'Aeöpos remains constant in N.T. 
Buresch 3 is in favour of e in the N.T. and the LXX.; in the latter, 
where the word is extraordinarily frequent, we should write with e 
according to «A*B*(B° -o-). — In AttcAA^s A. 18. 24, 19. 1 n* for 
'AiroXXm (A7roAAwvios D) it must be remembered that the names 
are originally identical : 'AttcXXwv being Doric for AttoAAwv. It 
appears in fact that in the Acts we should read AttcAA^s (in the 
a text), whereas AttoAAws is an interpolation from 1 C. 1. 12 etc.; 
the scholia also (Cramer, Caten., p. 309) seem to assume a difference 
with regard to the name between Acts and 1 Corinthians. 

3. E - I, I - Y. The Latin 1 in the majority of cases where the 
vowel was no pure i, but inclining to e, was represented by the 
older Greek writers not by t but by e : Te/3epts, 4 Ttßepios, Ao/xenos, 
Ka7r€TwAiov and others (but Titos always with 1), see Dittenberger, 
Herrn, vi. 130 ff. In the N.T. Tißeplov L. 3. 1 is the traditional 
spelling, but Aeimov linteum Jo. 13. 4 f., 5 Aeyewv legio the majority 
of uncials in Mt. 26. 53 (-1- w*B*DL), Mc. 5. 9 (-1- k*B*CDLA), 
15 (-1- k*BLA, hiat D), L. 8. 30 (-t- k*B*D*L). In the N.T. the 
best authority thus supports -twv ; both forms occur in inscriptions. 6 

1 De Vit. Onomasticon tot. lat. s.v. 

2 Gregory, 81. W. Schmid, Gtg. Gel. Anz., 1895, 40. 

3 Op. cit. 216 f., cp. also H. Anz. Subsidia ad cognosc. Graecorum serm. 
vulg. e Pentat. vers, repetita (Diss. phil. Hal. xii. ), p. 363. 'OXodpevovrat. stands 
side by side with oXedpos also in Clem. Horn. xi. 9. 

4 Hermas, however, has Tißepiv Vis. i. 1. 2. 

5 Ditt. 144 (Hesych. ; Xe^rtdpios, inscr.). 

6 Ibid. 142 (Keyubv also in Plut. Eom. 13, Otho 12). 


The opposite change is seen in ILmoAoi Puteoli (A. 28. 13), the 
ordinary Greek spelling l (similar is the termination of Xzvtlov ; 
the form Xevreov would have looked unnatural to a Greek). In 
the Greek word dAiei's it appears that if the termination contains 
i (-u2, -els), the preceding 1 becomes e from dissimilation : aAeeis 
Mt. 4. 18 f. «*B*C, Mc. 1. 16 AB*L corr -, 17 kAB*CLA, L. 5. 2 
n*ACLQ.— I - Y: Min-iA^vn is the older spelling, MmA. A. 20. 14 
that of the later writers ; for Tpwyi'Aioi/ or -i'a (Strab., Stephan. 
Byzant., Plin.) the MSS. in A. 20. 15 have -vAta, -vX{X)iov (-vXiov, 
-os mss. of Ptolem. v. 2. 8). 

4. Interchange of short and long vowel (or diphthong). — A-ß. 
avayaiov, dvtoyaiov (cp. on at - e, § 3, 7) : the spelling with a has 
overwhelming authority in Mc. 14. 15, L. 22. 12 (from ovo-yij; 
dvwyaiov with v.l. dvoKaiov in Xenoph. Anab. v. 4. 29). — EI before 
a vowel easily loses its 1 from early times, especially in derivatives 
("Apaos 7rayos, but 'ApeoTrayrnys as in N.T.); hence may be explained 
■>)xpei!>di]<rav K 3. 12 O.T. («AB*D*G, in lxx. »A 2 ), whereas 
äxpeios does not vary. But there are instances in the simple word 
as well : -reAeos often in Attic, reAeios N.T. ; 7rAeoi' also in N.T. 
occasionally, L. 3. 13 (-«tov C), A. 15. 28 (D -eioi'), elsewhere ir\eiov, 
and always 7rAaW, irXeiovos etc. (Attic also has irXeovos) ; in the 
derivatives always irXeovegta, -(.ktzlv. — N.T. always eo-w (Homer and 
tragedians have eio-td and eo-w) ; on the other hand, etveKcv with 
lengthened vowel (Ionic ; üveKa is found in Attic Gk. as well, even 
in prose) is an alternative for eVe/cei/ in L. 4. 18, O.T. (also lxx. 
Is. 61. 1 ; supra p. 20, note 4), A. 28. 20 H*A, 2 C. 3. 10 (most mss.). — 
O - 12 : Trpwipos (from 7rpwi) and Trpoip.os Ja. 5. 7 (o nAB*P) are 
comparable with irkuipos (Att.) and 7rAdi'/xos (late writers). For 
Xpe-o<f>ei\eTr)s L. 7. 41, 16. 5 we should not write XP €0)( P- (which has 
less authority); 2 nor should we replace the correct ^tokkos A. 17. 18 
by 2toü<6s of «AD al. — [Y-OY: KoXXvptov Ap. 3. 18 «BC, -ovpiov 
AP does not belong here, on account of the long v ; the latter form, 
which is found elsewhere, is certainly of Latin origin.] A peculiar 
word is, or op.., which is equivalent to (c-idvpio) in 
sense, 1 Th. 2. 8 (in O.T. sporadically), 3 but cannot easily be connected 
with tp.eip. (from ipepos) ; but p.eipopat, appears to exist in this sense 
(Nicand. Theriac. 403), cp. (6)8vpofiai, (o)KeAAu, and the like, 
Kühner, I 3 , i. 186. 

5. Contraction and loss of vowel. — In contraction the Hellenistic 
language, as appears from its inflections, does not go quite so far as 
the Attic. Still veopvrjvia for Att. vovp.r)vla in Col. 2. 16 is only attested 
by BFG (lxx. occasionally): while dyaOoepyeiv (1 Tim. 6. 18; 
aya.9ovpyQ>v A. 14. 17, v.l. dyu.Öo7roi<oi') arises from the endeavour 
to keep the two halves of the compound word recognisable, § 28, 8 

1 Ditt. 145. 

2 Herodian, ii. 606 L., has w and o ; the word is certainly not Attic (the oldest 
form is \PV IJT V^> then xP €i ^ a " r V^) '< xP fü, "0 l '^° K ' '' am ^ the like come from Attic 
Xp^ws = x/^ *- See further Lobeck, Phryn. 691 ; W.-Schm. § 16, 5, n. 28. 

3 See W.-H. 152 a, W.-Schm. § 16, 6. 


(always Kaxovpyos, Upovpyelv etc.). 1 An entirely new kind of con- 
traction is that of iet = ii into l: Tapelov from Tapielov, irdv (pin) 
from, see § 24, «reueaa B* Acts 24. 4 2 (so also vyela for vyUia, 
no instances in N.T.). In veocro-ds, veocrcria, veocro-iov contraction 
never took place, but the e dropped out in (Ionic and) Hellenistic 
Gk.: so in N.T. voo-o-d? L. 2. 24 «BE al., vocro-ia with v.l. voo-o-ia 
13. 34, Mt. 23. 37 (condemned by Phryn. 206, Lob.). In «Aavds 
(Att.) for eAeeivds it must be remembered that the spelling eAeivos 
(Ap. 3. 17 AP, 1 C. 15. 19 FG) may also represent eAeiVos, and 
moreover, contraction in the N.T. is improbable. The reflexives in 
Hellenistic Gk. are a-eavrov, eavrov (but epavrov), § 13, 1 ; the con- 
junction 'if is lav, § 26, 4, a form which is also very largely 
introduced to express the potential particle (ibid.) 

6. Prothetic vowels. — The only points to note under this head 
are that öeAw always stands for edeXm ; on the other hand k«ivos 
never stands for Ikcivos : similarly x^«s is not found, but only ex&k 
(also the prevalent Attic form) Jo. 4. 52 «AB*CD al., A. 7. 28 
«B*CD, H. 13. 8 kAC*D*M. On opeipop.0.1 vide supra 4. 

7. Interchange of consonants.— The main point under this head 
is that the Hellenistic language did not adopt the Attic substitution 
of tt for era- or of pp for per, though isolated instances of this were 
continually intruding into it from the literary language, especially 
as Atticising writers naturally imitated this peculiarity as well as 
others. In the N.T. for crcr we have : OdXaacra, Trpdacrw, Tapdcra-b), 
iK7rXi] (tt A. 13. 12 B) Trepio-cros ; also /cpeicrcrojv Pauline 
epp. on preponderant evidence (1 C. 7. 38, 11. 17, Ph. 1. 23, only 

1 C. 7. 9 -tt- nBDE), but KptiTTwv Hebrews (tt 1. 4, 7. 7, 19, 22, 
8. 6 [twice], 9. 23, 11. 16, 35, 40, 12. 24, there is diversity only in 
6. 9, where tt is read by D*K, and 10. 34 0-0- «A) and Petrine epp. 
(1 P. 3. 17; doubtful 2 P. 2. 21). To this corresponds 170-crwv, 
fjo-o-ovo-Oai in St. Paul (1 C. 11. 17, 2 C. 12. 13, 15), but the literary 
words r/TTda-Oai, y]rrr\pa are read with tt even in his letters, 

2 P. 2. 19 f., E. 11. 12, 1 C. 6. 7 ; eAdWcoi/ Jo. 2. 10, E. 9. 12 O.T.; 
IAcittojv H. 7. 7, 1 Tim. 5. 9 (all MSS.; cp. § 2, 4); literary words, 
lAciTTOveiv 2 C. 8. 15 O.T. ; kXarrovv H. 2. 7 (9) O.T., Jo. 3. 30. 
(tt is also occasionally found in Hermas : Vis. iii. 7. 6 «Acittov ; 
Sim. ix. 27. 4 cAoittovs ; 9. 6 cAcn-Tw/m). Similarly a-qpapov always 
takes the place of Att. r^pepov. — With regard to Att. pp for pa- the 
usage is more evenly divided. "Apa-rjv Gospels, Ap. 12. 5 (but 
ap(p)eva «B, clearly a correction for dpcrev), E. 1. 27 [twice] 
(pp n*[C]), G. 3. 28 (pp «), 1 C. 6. 9, 1 Tim. 1. 10; but along with 
Öapcros, ddpcrei, dapaeire, which are constant, we find (in Paul. epp. 
and Hebr.), Oappdv 2 C. 5. 6, 8, 7. 16, 10. 15, H. 13. 6 (also 
mod. Gk. Bapptj ; but Apoc. Petr. 5 dapa-qa-avTes Trapadapcrvveiv) ; for 

1 Also in R. 13. 3 for t<j5 dya6<2 tpyu) there is a conjectural reading ry 070^0- 
epYy, but the antithetical clause dXXa ry KaKip will not suit this. 

2 Elsewhere always einend)*, -leiKeia. In ea6Lw, eadieis the analogy of the other 
parts of the verb prevented the fusion from taking place ; on d<f>els from ä<j>ir)ßi 
see § 23, 7. 


the vulgar p-axpav, p.aKp66ev Lc. and Hebr. give Tr6ppw($ev) L. 14. 32, 
17. 12, 24. 28, H. 11. 13 (Mt. 15. 8, Mc. 7. 6 O.T.; p.axpav ko.1 Tr6p P u> 
Barn. 20. 2). — Apart from these, there is hardly anything worthy of 
note. Fluctuation in the aspiration of consonants: crir — o-</> (also 
fluctuate in Attic) in cnrvpis, cr<pvpL<; Mt. 15. 37 (cr<£- D), 16. 10 
(o-<£- BD), Mc. 8. 8 (o-</>- mA*D), 8. 20 (o-<£- D), A. 9. 25 (o-<£- «C, hiat 
D); a-cpoyyos D Mc. 15. 36 (not Mt. 27. 48; o-<£- is also Attic); 
err - crd : /xao-ros Ap. 1. 13 BCP, -cröos N, /xa£os A (£ orig. = crS, so 
still in N.T. "A£wtos A. 8. 40 TIT&5N, so L. 11. 27 /xao-Tot most mss., 
-o-öot DFG 23. 29 (D*), but C fia£oi (usage also fluctuates in Attic 
writers, Kühner I 3 , i. 157). ^?6ßrjßpa is read L. 21. 11 BD for 
4>6ßy]Tpa ; this suffix takes the form sometimes of -Opov, sometimes of 
-T/Dov, Kühner, ibid. ii. 271. 27. The ir in 'A7rc£ia ('A<£<£ia, see 
§ 3, 11), Philem. 2, is aspirated, as in inscriptions of the regions 
(Phrygia, Caria) to which Appia belonged, where the name is 
frequent ; but it is very doubtful whether this is the Roman name 
Appia. The Attic navSoKeiov, TravSoKevs (Lob. Phryn. 307) occurs 
in L. 10. 34 f. in N* or w*D*. In ovdds, pyöet's the 8 of ouS(e), p.i]8(e) 
has united, contrary to rule, with the aspirate of eh to form 6 (else- 
where = t + aspirate) ; these forms occur from the latter part of the 
Attic period onwards, in writers (Aristot.), on inscriptions, and on 
papyri, and so, too, in the N.T. (and lxx.) occasionally : p.-qdkv 
A. 27. 33 «AB; ov0ev6s L. 22. 35 ABQT al., 2 C. 11. 8 «BMP ; 
ovdkv L. 23. 14 «BT, A. 15. 9 BHLP, 19. 27 mABHP, 26. 26 «B, 
1 C. 13. 2 NABCD°L (thus this spelling is by no means universal). 
Still Z£ov9eveLv is the prevalent form (as also in lxx. ; only in 
Mc. 9. 12 BD have -Sev^)- W. Schm. § 5, 27, n. 62 (Herrn. Mand. 
iv. 2. 1 ovöev k* Sim. ix. 4. 6; Clem. Cor. i. 33. 1, 45. 7 p^dapws, 
i.e. p.7]8i a/xws). 

8. Insertion and omission of consonants. — Aap,ßdvw in Hellenistic 
Gk. retains in all forms and derivatives with the stem Xi]ß the p. of 
the present tense : tX.ijp.fpOrjv, Xijpupi*;, 7rpoo-ü)7roAiy/x7TTr;s etc., § 24, 
W.-Schm. § 5, 30. The addition of p. in ep.Trl(p)ir\->]p.i, ZpLTri{p)irpr)p.i 
is as variable in Attic as in Hellenistic Gk. (W.-Schm. ibid.) ; 
N.T. ipLTmrXwv A. 14. 17 (with p. DEP), ep.Trnrpa<rdai 28. 6 N* for 
■KifiTTpaa-dai (irnrp. A ; elsewhere uncertainty about the p. only exists 
in the case of these compounds with ip.-). — Insertion of cons, for 
euphony (dv-S-/oos, p.eo-qp.-ß-pia) takes place in many Semitic names 
CEa--8-pas, Map.-ß-pyj), in the N.T. ÜSa/x^wv, i.e. Sctfwr-ow, H. 11. 32 
('Io-rpa/yA D L. 2. 32, etc.). — a-(f>v8p6v for <r<pvpov A. 3. 7 N*AB*C* is 
unexplained. /zoyyiAdAos Mc. 7. 32 has no authority (^oyiAdAos 
= poyts AaAwv, and so with one y in «AB*DGK al.: also LXX. 
Is. 35. 6 : B c " rr - is the first to write yy). The excision of a 
consonant (accompanied by lengthening of a vowel) appears in, ylvwTKdi (Ionic and Hellenistic) ; also noticeable is apuos 
= apKTo<s Ap. 13. 2 (all uncials), found also in the LXX. and 
elsewhere in the late language (W.-Schm. § 5, 31). 



1. Words in -pd and those in -via, i.e. -va (§ 3, 8) follow the 
pattern of those in -cro-a, -AAa etc., i.e. they take in G.D. 77s, j; 
instead of Att. äs, ä. (On the other hand those in -pä [fjfiepä], and 
in true -ia [dXijdeia, fua\ retain a throughout the sing.) Iirdpa, -tjs 
(A. 10. 1 etc.), payaipy (A. 12. 2), TrXrjpLpLvp-qs (L. 6. 48), 7rpuprj<; 
(A. 27. 30), 2ct7r</)€tpa, -y (5. 1), crweiSvia, -t/s (5. 2). Similarly the 
lxx. and the papyri. 1 Exception : cndpa (adj.), cneipa. L. 1, 36 all 

2. The inflection ä, G. äs, etc. in proper names is not confined to 
words where a definite sound (e, 1, p) precedes, any more than it is 
in Attic. Mdpda, -as Jo. 11. 1 ; AvSSa, -as (?) A. 9. 38 (cp. § 10, 5). 
To this corresponds the inflection of masc. names, N. äs, G. ä (as in 
Doric etc.), D. a, A. äv, V. ä: Tovöas, -a (Mc. 6. 3); 'AypLTnras, -ä 
(A. 25. 23). Cp. § 10, 1. (On the other hand, -tas, -tow: so 
Za^apias, -ov L. 1. 40, 3. 2, beside "Awa and Ka'id(pa • 'HAtov, 1. 17 
[-a nB], 4. 25, like Att. KaAAias, -ov.) 

3. Peculiarities. — 0ea A. 19. 27 occurs in the formula ?} p-eydXy 
ded'Aprepiis (as in inscriptions); but ibid. 37 1) öeo's, which is the 
usual Att. form. — Oeos, voc. 6ee, Mt. 27. 46 is unclassical, occasion- 
ally in LXX.; cp. Synt. § 33, 4. 

4. Contracted words in Decl. I. and II. — Boppas, G. a, L. 13. 29, 

Ap. 21. 13 (Att. and later writers have ßopkas and ßoppds). The 
use of contracted words of Decl. II. is very limited : rovs and 7rXov<s 
are transferred to Decl. III. (§ 9, 3) ; x €l / X( W 01 ' J°- 18- x i s n0 doubt 
from -ppos\ 60-Tovv Jo. 19. 36 O.T., but uncontracted dcrrea L. 24. 39 
(D oo-rä) ; -£ö)i/ Mt. 23. 27, Eph. 5. 30 T.E., H. 11. 22, 2 like xpweW 
Ap. 2. 1 AC, -eovs 4. 4 «, -eas 5. 8 N (cp. Clem. Horn. x. 8 \pvo-kovs, 
dpyvpkovs, XP 1 ' " 6 «) dpyvpea, x«A/<ea ; xvii. 3 x<*AKea, -^pvo-ea); but this 
uncontracted form is in no passage read by all MSS., and alternates 
with much more numerous examples of contraction in this adj. (and 
in the adjectives d7rAo?s, oWAous) in Ap. and elsewhere. Cp. 
W. Schmidt de Joseph, eloc. 491 f. Xpvo-dv Ap. 1. 13 n*AC is a gross 
blunder, wrongly formed on the model of xp v o~ds 1. 12 (?). 

5. The so-called Attic second declension is wanting, with the 
exception of the formula i'Aews 0-01 (v.l. i'Aeos) Mt. 16. 22; cp. t'Aews 
v.l. -eos H. 8. 12 (Hermas, Sim. ix. 23. 4; tXeiav [-cws A] Clem. Cor. 
i. 2. 3). 'Avwyewv Mc. 14. 15 (-dyaiov, -wyatov are the best attested 
readings), L. 22. 12 (-dyaiov, -wyaiov, -a-yeov, -wytov) is an incorrect 
form ; rj ecus is non-existent, avyi) taking its place ; Aad's, vaos stand 
for Aews, vews; fj dXiov, -wvos for ■>) aAws. 'H Kws A. 21. 1, ace. Kw for 
Kwv (like late Attic), is declined in this case after the manner of 
ai'Sois Decl. III. 

1 E.g. dpotf^s Berlin Pap. 328, ii. 32 ; 349, 8. 'IMijs 327, 15. Eidveir,s (§ 3, 
8) 405, 24. 

2 'Octtovv 'Attiko'i, bariov "EXXtjc« says Moeris ; but many examples of the 
uncontracted form survive in Attic as well. Cp. W. -Schmidt, op. cit. 491. 

26 THIRD DECLENSION. [§ 7. 6. § 8. 1-3. 

C. Gender in Decl. II. — '0 and 7} äAaßacn-pos are recorded in Mc. 1 4. 3 
(Att. 6 äAaßarn-os Aristoph.). 'Ü dxpivdos for 77 Ap. 8. 11 (?) (n omits 
6). l ßdros in Mc. 12. 26 has overwhelming authority; 7} is read in 
L. 20. 37, A. 7. 35 (Hellenistic, according to Moeris). 'H At?™? 
Ap. 14. 19 f. as commonly, but, according to ABCP, rrjv krjvbv . . . rbv 
fxiyav (cp. lxx., Gen. 30. 38). c O Xidos in all cases, even of the 
specially precious species of stones (where Attic has 77). 'H Atftos (as 
in old dialects, lxx.), L. 15. 14, A. 11. 28 (6 L. 4. 25). 'H 
H. 9. 4 (Attic : o Doric and lxx.). e O vaAos for 1) Ap. 21. 18 (cp. 
Xidos ; ö iieAos Theophrast. de lapid. 49). 


1. Accusative singular in a and v. — The late-Greek forms in -ov for 
a (inscriptions, papyri : found quite early in dialects), on the analogy 
of Decl. I. are frequently found in MSS., Mt. 2. 10 do-repav n*C, 
Jo. 20. 25 x^P av AB, A. 14. 12 Aiixv DEH al., dpo-evav Ap. 12. 3 A, 
etKovav 13. 14 A, fj.7Jvav 22. 2 (Tisch, on H. G. 19); they do not 
deserve to be adopted. In words in -7/9 the accus, in -rjv is not 
unknown to Attic (Tpn'/pyjv, ^rjp.oo-0evi]v), but occurs only in barytone 
words [paroxyt. or proparoxyt.] ; in the N.T. the following are 
incredible: acnpaA^v (? accent) H. 6. 19 ACD, o-vyyev-qv R 16. 11 
AB*D* do-eßijv B. 4. 5 nD*FG, vynjv Jo. 5. 1 r «*. — In barytones 
in -is with t 8 in the stem, the regular Attic accus, is -tv, and so 
too in the N.T. \^P IV e ^ c - are the usual forms : but yd-pno. A. 24. 

27 (-iv n*EL), 25. 9 A, Jd. 4 AB, Hellenistic according to Moeris 
(papyri). 1 Cp. /cAeiSa L. 11. 52 (lxx.; D kXciv as in Attic and 
Ap. 3. 7, 20. 1, ras tfAets in the quotation of Justin, cp. 2). 

2. Accusative plural (assimilation to the nominative plural). — 
The old termination (v)s in vowel stems (tovs ßorpvs, toi>s ßois) has 
disappeared in Hellenistic Gk., and these words are inflected with 
as: Mt. 14. 17 l\6vas, Jo. 2. 14 /?oas. But kAcis — xAeiv — tos kAcis, 
Ap. 1. 18 («AetSas B). — For -as we have -es in the mss. (accus. = 
nom.: old dialects and late Gk. 2 ) in the case of -reo-a-apes (§ 6, 1), 
A. 27. 29 », Jo. 11. 17 «A, Ap. (4. 4), 7. 1 A tAvice, P once, 9. 14 t* 
(so still more often in lxx.). So also we have b} r assimilation 
(like at and ras ttoAcis, rpivypeis) 01 and toi's /3ao-iAeis in Hellenistic 
Gk., and this accus, plur. is regular in N.T. for all words in -e»'s. 

3. Relation of the nominative to the cases (inflection with or 
without consonant). — The inflection -as, -aos = ws, as yrjpo.s, -ws, «epus-, 
-ws, has almost disappeared. T'vpas, dat. yijpet- in L. 1. 36 (as in 
Ionic : so usually in lxx., where also the gen. y>)po vs occurs, as in 
Clem. Cor. i. 63. 3; ibid. 10. 7 77/pet, v.l. -a). Kepas, repas take t 
(as in Attic and always in Hellenistic Gk. repara, repdrwv ace. to 
Moeris): nepara Ap. 13. 1, repara Mt. 24. 24. We have only 
/cpeas and plur. *pea R. 14. 21, 1 C. 8. 13 (other cases wanting). 

1 See also Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo senatus populusque R. ...usi sunt 
(Göttingen, 1888), p. 59. 

2 See especially Buresch, Rh. Mus. xlvi. -_'1S. 

§8.3-6.] THIRD DECLENSION. 27 

There is most attestation for the consonantal inflection with v for 
all cases of the comp, in -wv : exceptions are almost confined to the 
Acts (irXelovs nom. or ace. A. 13. 31, 19. 32, 21. 10, 23. 13, 21, 
24. ii, 25. 6, 14: but -ves, -vas 27. 12, 20, 28. 23) and John (p^(w, 
fc* -ova 1. 51, eAacro-ü) 2. IO, //.ei{a> ABE al. -wv, D -ova 5. 36, 7rAeioi>s 
4. 41, elsewhere Mt. 26. 53 irXe'na or -ovs). — On the other hand the 8 
is omitted not only in vvyo-xeis Mt. 15. 22, Mc. 8. 3 (Polyb. and others; 
like 7roAeis, wrongly written v^o-tis), but also in epets (ace.) Tit. 3. 9 
n c AD al. (e/atv n*DE al., but in the middle of words that are clearly 
plurals), G-. 5. 20 (nom. with v.l. epis sing.), 2 C. 12. 20 (ditto), cp. 
v.l. in 1 C 3. 3, 1 Tim. 6. 4; side by side with epiSes 1 C. 1. 11 all 
MSS. (epeis ace. in Clem. Cor. i. 35. 5). — Assimilation of the nom. to 
the oblique cases takes place in Hellenistic Gk. in words in -is, -ivos 
when iv is substituted for is (piv, 2aAap.iV), and so in N.T., ■>) wSiv 
1 Th. 5. 3 (aKTiv Apoc. Petr. 7). 

4. Open and contracted forms. — 'Opewv Ap. 6. 15 (Hermas, Sim. 
ix. 4. 4 etc.; Clem. Cor. i. 10, 7), and x €t ^-^ wv/ H. 13. 15 (from 
LXX. Hos. 14. 3) show the widespread tendency, which is 
apparently not wholly foreign to Attic, to leave this case uncon- 
tracted in words in os. (But «twv A. 4. 22, 7. 30 etc.) On the 
other hand we have Trrjx v ^ ^VX^ V f° r ^/X €WV J°- 21. 8 (-cwv A), 
Ap. 21. 17 j 1 1//X10-VS (a barytone adj. in vs : ßaßvs etc. are never so 
inflected) has i/ui'o-ous for -eos Mc. 6. 23 (Apoc. Petr. 27), rjfxujrj 
L. 19. 8 rn (D 2 ), with the var. lect. rjpicr(e)ia nBLQ, t<x ■Sjfiurv 
AKA(D*). 'H/Ato-eia would be a not impossible assimilation to 17 
7/yUtcreia ; fjfjLicrovs and <nj are attested as Hellenistic. 2 'Yyi^s, vyirj 
Jo. 5. 11, 15 etc. are Hellenistic (Attic has 171a as well) 

5. Genitive -«os and -«w$. ^aöews L. 24. 1 (on preponderant 
evidence), and Trpaews nBKL 1 P. 3. 4 are mistakes of the popular 
language (see Lobeck, Phr. 247) for -eos (otherwise there is no 
instance of the gen. of the adj. in -vs). 

6. Peculiarities. — 'Salt' in Attic is ot &\t$, in N.T. to a\as, 
Mt. 5. 13 twice (aAa [cp. to yaAa] « twice, D once), Mc. 9. 50 
twice (äAa once «*, twice LA), L. 14. 34 (aAa n*D), no doubt derived 
from Tot>s aAas, and inflected like Tepas : aAaT6 Col. 4. 6. This form is 
also characteristic of the common language, according to Herodian ii. 
716, Lentz. (In Mc. 9. 49 D has dAi in a clause from Levit. 2. 13 
which is wanting in nBLA ; ibid. 50, ace. aAa N*A*BDLA, aAas 
N e A 2 CN al.) — Navs only occurs in A. 27. 41 ttjv vavv (literary 
word = vulgar to 7rAoiov). — "Opvig 'a hen' nom. sing. L. 13. 34 (cp. 
Doric gen. opviyos); 3 for 'bird' N.T. has opveov Ap. 18. 2 etc. 
(also Barn. 10. 4, Clem. 1 Cor. 25. 2, Herrn. Sim. ix. 1, 8). — 
2\jyy6viis, -eis, dat. plur. -even, (like yoveis, -evert) Mc. 6. 4 (-«riv N a 
[om. «*]AB 2 CD* al.), L. 2. 44 B*LXAA.* 

1 On the Hellenistic iryxup, Lob. Phryn. 243 f. W. Schmidt,' Jos. eloc. 498. 

2 Lob. 247. In dialects and in poetry a neuter plur. in -eta of these words occurs, 
A. Buttmann, Stud, und Kr. 1862, 194. 

3 Babrius ap. Crusius Philol. 1894, 238 (Athen. 9, 374 D, Herodian i. 44. 7 L.), 

4 Cram. Anecd. Ox. iii. 246. 

2 8 METAPLASMUS. [§ 9. 1-3. 


1. Fluctuation between neuter and masculine in Declension II. — 
Atiirvos for -ov is only a v.l. in L. 14. 16, Ap. 19. 9 (B), 17. Aeo-fx6$ 
has plural Sea-fid (old) L. 8. 29, A. 16. 26, 20. 23, and Seo-^ot (old) 
Ph. 1. 13 (without distinction). Zv-yds 'yoke' (in use since Polyb.) 
never £uy6v. öe/teAiov, plur. -a A. 16. 23 (Horn, lxx.; Herrn. Sim. 
ix. 14. 6; Attic, according to Moeris), elsewhere 6 öe/xeAios 
1 C. 3. 11 f., 2 Tim. 2. 19, Clem. Cor. i. 33. 3 etc. (strictly sc. Ai'öos ; 
Attic). 'O vüTos R. 11. 10 O.T. quot. (class, to v&rov). Zitos, plur. 
o-tTa A. 7. 12 HP ( Att. and lxx. ; a-nla read by «AB etc. does not 
suit the sense). StcLSiov has plur. o-raoia Jo. 6. 19 N*D, and o-Ta67ov? 
« corr ABL al. : the latter also occurs in L. 24. 13 and Ap. 21. 16 
AB al. with v.l. -mv (both plurs. are Attic). 

2. Fluctuation between Declensions I. and II. — Compound sub- 
stantives with dp\€Lv in their second half are formed with -ap^os in 
Attic, in (dialectic and) Hellenistic Gk. more often with -dpxT]s 
(Decl. I.), Kühner, i. 3, i. 502. So in N.T. e'6Wpx>/s, -rrarpiapxris, 
7roX.LTdpxrjS, T€Tpaapx>/s ('Ao-iapxwv Acts 19. 31), also eKaTovTapY^/s 
centurio Mt. 8. 13 (-xv K b UA), and in the majority of places in the 
Acts ; but xiAiapx»? tribimus always, eKdTovTapxos A. 22. 25 and 
often (with much variety of reading about the vowel) ; a-rparoTrk- 
Sapx»? or -1]% 28 16, an addition of the ß text (om. «AB). 1 
8\)o-6VT€piov A. 28. 8 according to Moeris is Hellenistic for -pea, 
Lob. Phryn. 518. *Hxos, o (in L. 21. 25 to, see 3), L. 4. 37, A. 2. 2, 
H. 12. 19, similarly stands for r)xv (Moeris). 

3. Fluctuation between Declensions II. (I.) and III. — The exx. 
of interchange of -os masc, Decl. IL, and -os neut., Decl. III., have 
somewhat increased in number, in comparison with those in the 
classical language. The Attic 6 ifXeos becomes to eAeos in lxx. and 
N.T. always (exc. Mt. 9. 13 eAeov C 3 EFG etc.: 12. 7 eAeov EG etc., 
23. 23 tov eAeov CAAII : H. 4. 16 e'Aeov C b D c EL : Tit. 3. 5 tov 
eAeov D e KL), with gen. eAeovs, dat. e'Ae'ei (the original forms, if we 
may judge from the old derivative eAeeivds, cp. <paeivds from <£aos, 
and the compound v^Aevys). 'O i^Xos is the class, and also the usual 
N.T. form; to (. (nom. or ace.) 2 C. 9. 2 xB, Ph. 3. 6 K*ABD*FG, 
with gen. fvJAoi-s A. 5. 17 only B* (Clem. Cor. i. 6. 1, 2, 9. 1 etc. 
to; 5. 2, 4, 5 etc. ö). "Hxovs L. 21. 25 for ->ix ov ( see 2). '0 6dp.ßo<s 
(ancient) for to L. 4. 36 D (6. peyas), cp. A. 3. 10 6dp.ßov C. To 
7tAoi"tos (nom. or ace. sing.) 2. C. 8. 2 x*BCP, E. 1. 7, 2. 7, 3. 8, 16, 
Ph. 4. 19, Col. 1. 27 (also 6 ttA. «), 2. 2 (neut. n*ABC), is attested on 
preponderant or very good evidence; elsewhere (even E. 1. 18) 
6 7rA., and always gen. ttAoi'toz'. To o-kotos (cp. o-KOTetvds) is 
universally found (earlier ö and to) : in H. 12. 18 ctkotw is a wrong 
reading for £d(pw. Fluctuation between -os neut. and -a, -?/ Decl. I. 
is rarer: to 8tyos (Attic, which has also f) Si^a) 2 C. 11. 27 Siipei 
(Slifa B*); to vikos* 1 C. 15. 54 f. O.T. quot., 57, Mt. 12. 20 O.T. 

1 On the usage of Josephus cp. W. Schmidt, Jos. elocut. 4S5 ff. 

2 The usual lxx. form : Lob. Phryn. 647. 

§9-3. § io. 1-2.] PROPER NAMES. INDECLINABLE 29 

quot., Herrn. Mand. xii. 2. 5 ; ■»] vi/07 1 Jo. 5. 4. Nous and -n-Xovs 
(the latter A. 27. 9) are declined like ßovs : gen. voos, dat. vot, as 
also in Herrn. Sim. ix. 17. 2 (cp. § 7, 4). 1 'H &X«v, -wvos Mt. 3. 12, 
L. 3. 17, for 17 aXws, -w (cp. § 7, 5). The dat. is formed from 
Decl. III. in words that in their other cases are neuters of Decl. II.: 
Sdhcpvov (Ap. 7. 17, 21. 4) — 8a.Kpva — Sdicpvo-iv L. 7. 38, 44 (also in 
Attic occasionally ; Sdi<pv is an old form occurring in poetry) : 
crdßßaTov — o-dßßaTa - <rdßßa<riv always Mt. 1 2. i etc. Consonantal 
stem of Decl. III. for -o- stem of Decl. II. : Kam'jywp (on the model of 
p))TO)p) Ap. 12. 10 only in A for Kanj-yopos (nBCP as elsewhere 
in N.T.). 2 


1. The Hebrew personal names of the O.T., when quoted as such, 
remain with few exceptions unaltered and indeclinable : 'ASdp, 
'Aßpadp, 'laKioß, &apaw, AuviS etc. The exceptions are mainly 
nominatives in H""", which are represented by the termination -as and 
declined according to Decl. I. (gen. -a and -ov, see § 7, 2) : 'IovSas 
Mt. 1. 2 f.; Ovpias, gen. -ov ibid. 6; 'E^Was, 'Ho-atas etc. (but 'Aßtd 
[as LXX.] ibid. 7 nom. ace, L. 1. 5 gen.). Other exceptions are: 

Mavao-crti Mt. 1. IO ace, Mavacrcny? nom., cp. inf. 3 (Mavacro-i) nom. 

N b B) ; 'law? - }? and 'lup.ßp^ 2 Tim. 3. 8 ; Aevis, -eis nom. H. 7. 9 
N C BC*, the remaining MSS. -t (et) : cp. inf. 2. 2oXo(j.wv is declined 
either with gen. -wj/os (therefore nom. -/xwv), so Mt. 1. 6 -/^wra (but 
«* -/xwv indecl.), 12. 42, and elsewhere: or -wvtos (like Eei'o^wi', 
therefore nom. -p.Cov) -. A. 3. 1 1 -pQtvTos (DE -/xwvos), 5. 1 2 (-/xwvos 
BDEP) ; so also LXX., unless, as usually happens, the word remains 
indeclinable. Ino-ovs Josua H. 4. 8. Mwixnjs (so, according to the 
best evidence, with LXX. and Josephus, instead of Mwo-. of the 
ordinary MSS.), gen. always -ews as if from -ei's, dat. -et Mt. 17. 4 
«BD al. (others -1% Mc. 9. 4 AB 3 DE etc., ibid. 5 nABCDE etc. 
(nearly all), and so elsewhere with constant variation in the MSS. 
between -et and -i] : ace. -ea only in L. 16. 29, elsewhere -t/v 
(A. 6. 11, 7. 35, 1 C. 10. 2, H. 3. 3). The latter inflection : -rj<s, -t), 
~27> 'V v ( C P- m f- 3) is that prevalent in the LXX. 3 

2. The same old Hebrew names, if employed as proper names of 
other persons of the N.T. period, are far more susceptible to 
Hellenisation and declension. The Hellenising is carried out : (a) 
by appending -os ; Tokw/3os always, "Aya/3-os A. 11. 28, 21. 10: (b) 
in words that in their Greek pronunciation would end in a vowel, by 
appending -s to the nom., -v to the ace: so 'E/o-oSs, 'E/o-ovv (cp. 1), 
Aevis (also written -e<s; therefore t) Mc. 2. 14 (ace. -iv, indecl. N*A 

: So also pods, gen. poos, in later Greek : cp. W.-Schm. § 8, 11, note 7. 

2 Ibid. § 8, 13 : it looks as if the original nom. was taken for a gen. : the late 
form dcaKwv for o^clkovos is parallel. 

3 In Josephus Niese and Naber write -e'os (an impossible inflection ; in the 
mss. -e'ws is a strongly attested variant), -et, -rjv in their text; -ews (with v.l. -eos) 
is found as early as Diodor. Sic. 3-4. 1. 3. W.-Schm. § 10, 5. 


al.), L. 5. 27 (ace. -iv, indecl. D), 29 (nom. -t$, indecl. D) ; to which 
must be added the nom. in -as, see 1 ; for the inflection vide inf. 3: 
(c) in names in -an, by the substitution of s for v in the nom., so that 
the inflection follows that of 'Iot-oas : "Awas L. 3. 4, A. 4. 6, 
Jo. 18. 13, 24 "|3n (Joseph. "Avav-os) : 'Iwvaöas A. 4. 6 I), 1 a name 
which in Joseph, is still further Hellenised to 'Iiovaö^s ; so N.T. 
'Iwavrys (§ 3, 10) *&VP or 'Iwavav (L. 3. 27 in the genealogy of Christ), 
gen. -ov, 2 dat. V(-£i L. 7. 18, 22 «AB or B*[L], Mt. 11. 4 DA, 
Ap. 1. 1 N*, cp. Mwi'o-ei), acc. -t]v. Josephus also makes Katvas out of 
Katvdv and Naöas out of Na#a;'. The common name 'Icuav^s is also 
abbreviated into 'Iwva (Syr. 82)1) LXX. 2 (4) Kings 25. 23, and so 
Mt. 16. 17 Sipwv Ba/560jva=2. (6 utos) 'IwdVov Jo. 1. 42 ('Iwva 
AB 3 al., Syr.), 21. 15 ff. fla>va AC tOTr - al., Syr. Sin. wy, a form 
which also stands for the prophet Jonah L. 11. 29 etc.); 'IwvdV or 
-a/* («Br, Syr.) is found in L. 3. 30 (in the genealogy of Christ). 
By a similar abbreviation tP"^ became inO'V 'Iwo-tjs, gen. -tJtos 
(inf. 3) Mc. 6. 3 BDLA (Wifa », 'Iwotj AC), 15. 40, 47 (with 
similar v.l.): cp. the var. lect. to Mt. 13. 55, 27. 56, A. 1. 23, 4. 36; 
in this name the evidence preponderates for the full Hebrew form 
without alteration, vide inf. (d) The Hellenisation is carried furthest 
in 2ipu>v, -wvos = ^vfxewv (this form occurs for Peter in A. 15. 14 in 
James' speech, 2 P. 1. 1 [-ipv B] : for others in A. 13. 1, L. 2. 25 
etc.): the pure Greek name with a similar sound is substituted for 
the Hebrew name, after a fashion not unknown to the Jews of the 
present day, just as 'IdVwv (A. 17. 5 etc.) is substituted for Jesus, 
and perhaps KvSias for Xou{as (L. 8. 3 according to the Latin cod. /). 
On the other hand, the following, though employed in this way, 
remain unaltered and indeclinable : 'Icoo-j^ generally (vide sup.), 
NatfavavyA. (also the names of the angels Mi^a^A [Max- B] an d 
raßpt^X), Mavarjv A. 13. i. Similarly the woman's name 'EAto-a/3eV: 
whereas Q^T/2 sometimes remains as Mapiap, esp. for the mother of 
Christ, and sometimes is Hellenised to Napta (Mapiapp^ in Joseph.), 
with great diversity of reading in the MSS. (gen. Mapias Mt. 1. 16, 
18, 2. 11 etc.; acc. Maptap 1. 20 [-lav BL] : in chaps. 27 and 28 the 
form -La for the nom. has most support in the case of the other 
Maries; in L Mapiap 1. 27, 30, 34, 37, 39 etc., but t^§ Mapias 41, 
■fj Mapia 2. 19 nBD [D has also frequently elsewhere nom. -a, dat. -a 
i.e. -a, acc. -av] ; Paul in Ii. IG. 9 has Mapiap, an unknown lady, in 
ABCP -iav). 3 The following are declinable without further addition : 
"Awa nsri (nom. L. 2. 36) and Map6ta Syr. töFfllä (gen. -a?, see 
§ 7, 2) ; the following are Hellenised by the addition of a (al) : 
'Iwav(i')a 1HT\ "Sovcravva "i 123 1125 (L. 8. 3, 24. 10), and there is a similar 
addition of rj in ^SaAwp?/ D"0125 Ma 15. 40, 16. 1. 

1 'Itovadas appears already on an Egyptian papyrus of the 3rd cent. B.C., 
Flinders Petrie Pap. ii., p. 23: ' AttoWwvi.oi' . . .[TrapeTr]iÖT)fAoi> , 6s icai avpLcrrl 'Iwvddas 

2 'Iwcbou in i.xx. 2 Chr. 28. 12. J Cp. W.-Schm. § 10, 1, note 1. 


3. The declension of Hebrew masc. proper names whose stem 
ends in a long vowel (with the exception of those in -tas), and of 
the similar Greek or Graeco-Roman names which are formed by 
abbreviation (§ 29), follows the same pattern on the whole for all 
vowels, and is consequently known as the " mixed " declension. 
Three cases (G.D.V.) exhibit the pure stem (those ending in a, -7, w 
being in our spelling extended by an 1 mute) ; the nom. in all cases 
has s, the ace. generally v, but this is often wanting in LXX. and 
N.T. with the f](i) and w stems : Mavao-crrys, ace. -fj, vide sup. 1 (so 
LXX., e.g. 2 (4) Kings 20. 21, 21. 1, 2 Chron. chap. 33) : Aems, vide 
sup. 1, 2: 'Ä7toAA(jüs, ace. 'AttoXXQ A. 19. 1 (-wv A 2 L, 'A7re\\fjv n*, 
§ 6, 2), cp. K<3 ace. § 7, 5, 1 C. 4. 6 (-<ov k*AB), Tit. 3. 13 (-wv *D b H, 

-wva FG). Exx. (a) Bapaßßas, Bapvaßas, 'Iot'Sas, Zrjvas (from Zrjvo- 
Swpos), 2iAas ( = ZiAoi;avos). (b) (Mavacro-^s, vide Sup.) A^eAA^s 

R. 16. 10, ace. -rjv (as in A. 19. 1 «, vide sup.). The gen. of Greek 
names of this class, in classical Greek -ov, is unrepresented in N.T. 
(c) Actus, vide sup. 2. (d) I^o-ous, -ov, -ov, -ovv, -ov. (e) A.7roAAcos 
(from 'AttoAAwvios). In extra-Biblical Greek besides this declension 
of such names there is found a second, in which there is a similar 
nom. in -s, but the stem for the remaining cases is extended by the 
addition of a consonant (usually 8, in Egypt t), e.g. A7T7ras, -aoos, 
'Ep/xrjs, -rjSos : the single N.T. example of this declension is 'Iwo-^s, 
--^tos, sup. 2. 

4. Roman proper names. — There need only be noticed Agrippa 
'AypHT7ras, -a : Aquila AkvAois : Clemens, Crescens, Pudens, gen. -entis 
= (KA77P7S) -ev-ros Ph. 4. 3, Kpyjo-KTjs 2 Tim. 4. 10, IIoiJSTys (-evros) 21. 
The n of the nom., which was hardly pronounced, is often absent 
from Latin inscriptions. 

5. Names of places, mountains, rivers. — In this category it is the 
usual practice in by far the majority of cases for non-Greek names 
to remain un-Hellenised and undeclined, with the exception, of 
course, of prominent place-names, which were already known to 
the Greeks at an earlier period, such as Ivpos • SiSoiv, -wvos ; "A£cotos 
Asdod (cp. § 6, 7) A. 8. 40 ; Aapao-Kos etc. and (river-name) 
'IopSav^s, -ov. The Hellenisation is well marked, a new etymology 
(tepds, SoAvpot) being given, in the case of 'Iepoo-oAu/xa, -wv, a form 
which is employed in the N.T. alongside of 'lepovo-aX-^p, (in the 
latter there is no good reason for writing the rough breathing, 
§4,4; Mc. and John (Gosp.) always have 'Iepoo-., and so Mt. exc. 
in 27. 37 : 'Iepow. is always the form in Ap., Hebr., and in Paul, 
except in the narrative of G. 1. 17 f., 2. 1 : L. gives both forms, 
but 'Upovo-. rarely in his Gospel. 1 Other exceptions are : B^avia, 
gen. -as, ace. -av Jo. 11. 1, Mc. 11. 12, Jo. 12. 1, Mc. 11. n etc. 
(but Mt. 21. 17, Mc. 11. 1 B* «s B-qOavla, L. 19. 29 n*BD* tk 

Br]ß(f>ayrj Kai B^öavia) : ToX-yoOa, Mc. 15. 22 tov ToXyoOav tottov 
(ToXyoOa ACDE al.): rd^oppa, -*>v Mt. 10. 15 (-as CDLMP), -as 
2 P. 2. 6, cp. inf. 6 (17 Top.6ppa) : Av88a, gen. AvSSrjs A. 9, 38 
B 3 EHLP, -as «*B*C, -a indecl. » C A (which is harsh in the con- 

x lxx. 'Icpovcr., except in 2, 3, 4 Mace, and Job. See W.-Schm. § 10, 3. 


nection e'yyus ovo-ys A. ry 'Ioatt^) ; elsewhere the ace. is AvS&x, ibid. 
32, 35 (-av CEHLP), either as neut. plur. or as indecl. (?) : 1 Sdpcirra 
ace. L. 4. 26 (-wv gen. lxx. Obad. 20): tov Zapwva (Ao~o~ap.) 'The 
plain' ]" 1 " 1 '^; Decl. III. or (with Aramaic -a) indecl. (?) : 2o8o|xa 
DinO (therefore Hellenised), -wv Mt. 10. 15, 11. 24, 17. 29, 2 P. 2. 6; 
-ots Mt. 11. 23 (Mc. 6. 11 Text. Rec, an insertion from Mt.), 
L. 10. 12 (so earlier in LXX.). On the other hand the following 
e.g. are unaltered and indecl. : B>/#Aeep, Byßtfiayy, Ka^apvaovp, 
Alvutv Jo. 3. 23, 'S.aXifx ibid., 2twv; (mountain) 2iva, (brook) Keopu'jv 
Jo. 18. 1 (tov xei-pdppov tov K. correctly AS ; other mss. are corrupt 
with twv KeSpiov, tov KeSpov ■ Josephus declines toG KcSpwvos). 
'EAcuoJv, Mount of Olives, as a Greek rendering cannot be indecl.; 
therefore, as we elsewhere have to ö'pos t«v eAcuwv, we must also read 
opos (ace.) to KaAoi'pevov eAcutov (not 'EAcuwv) L. 19. 29, 21. 37 : all 
MSS. give a wrong inflection in A. 1. 12 rod naXovficvov 'EAcuwvos 
for eAcuw : cp. § 33, 1. 

6. On the declension of place-names. — Double declension as in 
class. Greek is seen in Neav ttoXlv A. 16. 11 ; therefore also read 
c Iepa 7r6Aei Col. 4. 13. Instances of metaplasmus : Decl. I. fern, 
sing., Decl. II. neut. plur. — Avo-rpa, ace. -civ A. 14. 6, 21, 16. 1, 
but dat. -01$ 14. 8, 16. 2 : Qvdreipa ace. Ap. 1. n K, -av ABC, gen. 
-i»v A. 16. 14, dat. -oi? Ap. 2. 18 (B -py, § 7, 1), 24 (w° -py, B -pats), 
cp. Ai'SSa, supra 5. Decl. III. and Ded. I. confused. — SaAapiv, dat. 
-Ivl A. 13. 5, but -ivy kAEL, cp. (W.-Schm. § 10, 5) gen. SaAa/wv^s 
in Suid. 'E7n<£«vios (cod. A), Salamina(m) Latt. ap. Acts ibid, like 
Justin ii. 7. 7, Salaminae insulae xliv. 3. 2, Salaminam (cp. the new 
formations in romance languages, Tarragona, Cartagena, Narbonne). 

7. Gender. — In place-names the fern, is so much the rule that we 
have not only 1} 'lepovo-aXyp. (A. 5. 28 etc.), but even 7rdo-a Tepoo-d- 
\vp.a Mt. 2. 3 (on A. 16. 12 ^tAimroi's, fj-ris «ctti ... 7roAts, see 
§ 31, 2). The masc. 6 SiAwdp. (the spring and the pool) in L. 13. 4, 
Jo. 9. 7, 1 1 is explained by the interpretation added in Jo. 9. 7 
u Treo-ra Ape vos. 2 

8. Of indeclinable appellatives there are only a few : (rhv Kopßav 
Mt. 27. 6 B*, correctly tov Kopßavav ; indecl. in another sense 
Mc. 7. 11, where it is introduced as a Hebr. word): ndwa, to 

(Ap. 2. 17 tou p.): irdtrxa, to (L. 2. 4 1 tov tt.) : (crarav gen. for -va 

2 C. 12. 7 n c al.; more a proper name than an appellative): o-ixepa. 
ace. L. 1. 15 (indecl. in lxx.): ?; oi'ai Ap. 9. 12, 11. 14 (like y 
ÖAii/'is etc.: also used as a subst. elsewhere, lxx. and 1 C. 9. 16, 
see W.-Gr.). 


1. Adjectives in -os, -ri (-a), -ov and -os, -ov. — (a) Compound adj. 
y dpyy (äpyo's = d-epy6$) 1 Tim. 5. 13, Tit. 1. 12 (Epimenides), Ja. 

1 There is a similar fluctuation in Josephus, W.-Schm. ibid. 

2 Josephus has rj 2., sc. Trvyn, B. J- v. 12. 2, vi. 8. 5, but fj-txpi tov 2. ii. 16. 
2, vi. 7. 2. 

§ ii. 1-3.] ADJECTIVES. 33 

2. 20 BC* (v.l. veKpd); Att. dpybs ywq Phryn. Lob. 104 f. 'H owo- 

fia.Tr) Mc. 4. 28 (not Unclass.). 'H Trapa8a\ao-(ri.a Mt. 4. 13 (rr)v 
irapa6aXd(7(TLOV D, 7rapd ddXacrcrav N*), but ?} 7rapdAios L. 6. 17 ; 
these compounds in -tos admit of both forms, (b) Uncompounded 
adj. l H ^pT](j.os always (Att. -fios and -fir)). C H SStoihos Mt. 25. 10 
(A -fiat.), -fir) 2 C. 9. 5, 1 P. 1. 5 (Att. -/xos and -fii]). 'H auivios 
is the usual form as it is in Att.; -to 2 Th. 2. 16 (-tov FG), H. 9. 12, 
often as a v.l. 'H ßeßaua always (Att. -a and -os). C H koo-jaws (Att. 
-to) 1 Tim. 2. 9 «*AD corr - al.; v.l. -iws. 'H p.dTcuos and -to (as in Att.). 
C H ö(j.oios 1 Ap. 4. 3. 'H So-ios 1 Tim. 2. 8 (-to Att. and lxx.). 'H 
oupdvios L. 2. 13 (v.l. ovpavov), A. 26. 1 9 (Att. -to). In other cases 
the N.T. is in agreement with the ordinary grammar. 

2. To crvyyevr'js L. 1. 36 has the fern. 17 crvyytvis for Att. -rjs 
(Clem. Horn. xii. 8 : Phryn. Lob. 451 ; cp. ciryevi'oW -ywcuKwv Clem. 
Eom. Epit. ii. 144), whereas strictly this fern, only belonged to words 
in -TT/s, -tov, and to those in -ei's (ßaa-iXcs;). 

3. Comparison. — The absorption of the category of duality into 
that of plurality (cp. §§ 2, 1, and 13, 5), occasioned also the dis- 
appearance from the vulgar language of one of the two degrees 
of comparison, which in the great majority of cases (cp. inf. 5) was 
the superlative, the functions of which were taken over by the 
comparative. 1 The single instance of a superl. in -tcitos in the N.T. 
is aKpißecrraros A. 26. 5 (in literary language, the speech of Paul 
before Agrippa, § 2, 4). . The remaining superlatives are in -«ttos, 
and are generally employed in intensive [elative] sense, and in some 
cases have quite lost their force : «Xdx«rTos perexiguus passim 2 (as 
a true superl, either due to the literary language or corrupt reading 
in 1 C. 15. 9: for which lAa^to-TOTepos occurs in E. 3. 8, inf. 4): 
•fjSio-Ta 2 C. 12. 9, 15, A. 18. 3 D ('gladly,' 'very gladly'): Kpano-re 
in the dedication L. 1. 1: p-e'-yio-ros permagnus 2 P. 1. 4: irXeto-ros 
Mt. 11. 20, 21. 8, cp. § 44, 4: 1 C. 14. 27 (to irkelo-Tov 'at most'): 3 
ws Tdx«TTa A. 17. 15 (literary language, a true superl.) : i\|no-Tos 
passim : ifyyio-Ta D Mc. 6. 36 (Joseph, passim : Clem. Cor. i. 5. 1). 
The most frequent superlative which still remains is (fiaXXov-) 
/xaAio-Ta (Acts, Pauline epp., 2 Peter : still there are no more than 
twelve instances in all). 4 Cp. Synt. § 44, 3. 

x The usage of the Ep. of Barnabas agrees with that of the N.T. On the 
other hand in Hermas, although his Greek is the unadulterated language of 
ordinary speech, superlatives in -tcitos and -kttos are quite common with intensive 
[elative] sense, while he also uses the comparative for the superlative proper. 
This (Roman) form of the Koiv-q thus held the same position in this respect as 
the Italian of to-day, which does not distinguish between comp, and superl., 
but has preserved the forms in -issimo, etc., in intensive sense. 

2 Hermas, Mand. v. 1. 5 tov i\axio-Tov äxpivOiov 'the little bit of wormwood,' 
in a preceding passage (ibid.) äfivdiov /xiKpov Xiav. A similar use occurs as 
early as Aeschin. iii. 104. 

3 Herrn. Sim. viii. 5. 6, 10. I, ix. 7. 4 to ir\e?crTov fitpos, but viii. 1. 6 to 
irXeiov fi. 

4 A popular substitute for /läWov, ßdXicrTa as also for rrXetuv and ttXucttos is 
supplied by the adjective Trepicrcrds ('superabundant,' 'ample') together with 
its adverb and comparative, tö mpio-o-bv tovtuv Mt. 5. y - tö wX4oi> t. (cp. 


34 ADJECTIVES. [§ ii. 4-5. 

4. Special forms of the comparative. — For comp, of ä-ya9(Ss we 
never have dp.uvu>v, ßeXnov as an adv. only in 2 Tim. 1. 18 (-iW 
Herrn. Vis. iii. 4. 3, 7. 1); Kpeio-o-uiv (-ttwv, § 6, 7) only in Pauline 
epp., Hebrews, and Pet. ('more excellent' or 'mightier,' 'of higher 
standing,' opp. to eAaTTwv H. 7. 7); the vulgar äyadwTepos (Herrn. 
Mand. viii. 9. 1) is never found in the N.T. 1 For comp, of Katcos, 
X^ipoiv ' worse ' is frequent ; to ^o-ow is opp. to to Kpdcra-ov 1 C. 

11. 17; TJcrcrov adv. ' less ' (of degree) 2 C. 12. 15. 'EAdWwv 
deterior is the opposite to KpetWwi/ Jo. 2. 10, H. 7. 7, vide supra : 
or, as in Attic, to //«'fwi' R. 9. 12 O.T. quot. ; adv. eAaTTov 'less' 
(of number) 1 Tim. 5. 9 (/uuKpoVepos is 'smaller' as in Attic). Tdx«.ov 
(Hellenistic, B raxetov) is the constant form, not ddrrov (Att.) or 
-o-o-ov, unless the latter is to be read for oWov in A. 27. 13 (a 
literary word, cp. in Clem. Cor. i. 65. 1 the juxtaposition of the 
cultured phrase oVus ddrrov with conj., and the vulgar eis to to-xiov 
with inf.). 'E\axio-TOT€pos 'the lowest of all' (see 3) is correctly 
formed according to the rules of the common language ; /^(oVe/Dos 
3 Jo. 4 shows an obscured sense of the idea of the comp, in 
/i£i'(wv, but is not without analogies in the older language {e.g. ap.uv6- 
repos). Atir\6T€pov Mt. 23. i$=dtiplo magis (Appian also has 
Si7rAoTepa tovtojv = oWAacria t. Proem. 10), whereas d7rAoi'o-Tepos 
shows the Attic formation of such comparatives. 

5. Adjectival comparative (and superlative) of adverbs. — The 
superl. irpwros has been retained where the comp. Trporepos in the 
sense of 'the first of two' has disappeared, so Jo. 1. 15, 30 ttowtos 
pov, A. 1. 1 tov 7rpajTov Aoyov (but Trporepos — ' former,' 'hitherto' 
survives in E. 4. 22 t^v Trporepav dvacrrpo^v, cp. Herrn. Mand. iv. 
3. 1, 3 etc.) ; the corresponding adv. 7rp6repov= 'formerly' H. 10. 32, 
1 P. 1. 14 to 7T/J0T. (§ 34, 7) in Jo. 6. 62, 9. 8 (ibid. 7. 50, 51 as a 
wrong reading), G. 4. 13, 1 Tim. 1. 13, whereas the first of two actions 
is here also denoted by TrpQrov (Mt. 7. 5, 8. 21, L. 14. 28, 31 etc.), 
except in H. 4. 6, 7. 27 (literary style ; in 2 C. 1. 15 7rp6repov should 
apparently be erased with n*). The opposite word iayaros is like- 
wise also used in comp, sense (Mt. 27. 64) ; while tiorepos is superl. 

1 Tim. 4. 1 (a wrong reading in Mt. 21. 31); the adv. vo-repov is 

§44, note 3), L. 12. 4 Trepi<xa6Tep6v (irepiaabv AD al.) ri = 7r\^oi' ti; 12. 48 Trepicr- 
o-örepov, D Tr\tov ; cp. Mt. 11. 9 = L. 7. 26, Mc. 12. 40 = L. 20. 47, Clem. Cor. i. 
61. 3. The adv. irepKxcrGis = päWov Mt. 27. 23, Mc. 10. 26, 15. 14 (-acrortpus 
ENP al. ). (In conjunction fiäWov TreptaadTepov [-{pus D] Mc. 7. 36, -^pws fi. 

2 C. 7. 13, vide inf., cp. § 44, 5 and pleonasms like evdiw irapaxpvpa-) So also 
the Berlin papyri, 326, ii. 9 el 8' in wepia-aa ypafifxara KaraXLircj (' further'), and 
mod. Greek 7repi<r<r6Te/)os, adv. -pov 'more.' In St. Paul, however, TrepLcraoTt'pws 
appears occasionally to have a still stronger force = vtrepßaWSvTus 2 C. 7. 15, 

12. 5, G. 1. 14, cp. A. 26. II (irep. /xaXXoz/ 2 C. 7. 13 (?) = 'still much more,' cp. 
sup. ), while in other passages of his writings it may be replaced by fiaWov or 
p.d\i(TTa, as irepiaaOTepos by TrXeioov : Ph. 1. 14, 2 C. 1. 12, 1 C. 12. 23 f., 2 C. 10. 
8 etc. So also H. 7. 15 irtptcrcrörepov ( = /xdWov) Zti KaTd8r]\ov, 2. I, 13. 1 9 -pws, 
Herrn. Mand. iv. 4. 2, Sim. v. 3. 3. 

1 Kühner, i. 3, 1. 565. dyaddiraros is also found in Herrn. Vis. i. 2. 3 ('excel- 
lent ' ; as a proper superl. in Diod. Sic. xvi. 85) ; Herrn. Sim. viii. 9 has 
i)5vT£pos, Kühner, ibid. 555. 

§ 12. § 13- 1-2.] NUMERALS. PRONOUNS. 35 

common (also in superl. sense, as in Mt. 22. 27, L. 20. 32). 
Further exx. of comp, of adverbs : ef-un-epos Mt. 8. 1 2 etc. (Herrn. 
Sim. ix. 7. 5), €<r<oT€pos A. 16. 24, H. 6. 19, Karwrepos E. 4. 9 (of 
course also in superl. sense) ; these adjectives are not found in 
Attic, which however has the corresponding adverbs : dvurepov 
L. 14. 10, H. 10. 8 (Att. more often -pw), 1 KarwTepu) Mt. 2. 16 
(Karu) perhaps more correctly D), iroppunkpu (-pov AB) L. 24. 28, 
iyyvrepov B,. 13. 11. 

§ 12. NUMERALS. 

1. Aw has gen. Svo, dat. 6W1V (plural inflection) : similarly LXX.: 2 
Sva-iv for Svoiv is condemned by Phrynichus (Lob. 210). 

2. In compounds of Se/ca. with units, at least from thirteen up- 
wards, 8eK-a occupies the first place (this practice is more frequent 
in the later language than in the older : in mod. Gk., except in the 
case of eleven and twelve, it is universal) : (Se/caovo [Polyb.] 
A. 19. 7 HLP, 24. 11 same evidence; SeKaTe'o-o-apes Mt. 1. 17, 
2 C. 12. 2, G. 2. 1 : SefcaTrevre Jo. 11. 18, A. 27. 28, G. 1. 18 (Se/ca 
/cat irevTe Herm. Vis. ii. 2. I «) : Se/caoKTio L. 13. 4 (Se/ca kol 6. N C A 
a!.), 11 (S. k. o. AL al.). The ordinals, however, take the reverse 
order : Teo-crapeo-KcuSeKaTOS A. 27. 27, TrevTtKaiSeKaTos L. 3. I (Ionic 
and later language : Attic usually rkrapTos ko\ 8£k. ). With larger 
numbers there is a similar order of words, with or (usually) without 
Kai : etKoo-L rpeis 1 C. 10. 8, TearcrepaKOVTa kol e£ Jo. 2. 20. 

§ 13. PRONOUNS. 

1. Personal. — The 3rd pers. is represented by ainov: the same 
form is used for the 3rd pers. possessive. Reflexives: 1st pers. 
sing. e/mnTot!, 2nd sing, creavrov (not cravrov), 3rd sing, iävrov (not 
aiVroü) : 3 plural 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pers. eävrwv (so in Hellenistic Gk., 
not ?)yu,wv a., iijuwi/ a., crcßiov a.; on vp.u>v avrwv in 1 C. 5. 13 from 
Deut. 17. 7, see § 48, 10). 

2. Demonstratives.— OSto?, cK-eti'os as usually ; the intensive i 
(ovTocr-i) is unknown, but is employed by Luke (in the Acts) and 
Paul (Hebrews) in the adv. vvvi = vvv. "OSe is rare and almost con- 
fined to the phrase -raSe Aeyei : Acts 21. 11, Ap. 2. 1, 8, 12, 18, 

1 Quite plebeian are '4ti ävu, Zti /carw for ävürepov, Karürepov in the apocryphal 
addition to Mt. 20. 28 in D. 

2 W.-Schm. §9, 11. 

3 Even in the inscriptions of this period the trisyllabic forms, iavrov etc. sup- 
plant the dissyllabic, which in classical times were used alongside of them. In 
the old edd. of the N.T. the latter still appear pretty frequently, but are now 
rightly replaced by eavrov or avrov (see Synt. § 48, 6), so even in R. 14. 14 5i' 
eavTov «AB, A. 20. 30 dirtau eavruv «AB. The long a results from the con- 
traction (eo avrov) ; in the Hellenistic and Roman period it has occasioned the 
loss of the v in pronunciation, whence the spelling iarov (just as the t in at, q. was 
unpronounced). See Wackernagel in Kuhn's Zeitschr. xxxiii. (N. F. xiii. ), p. 2 ff. 

3 6 SYSTEM OF CONJUGATION. [§ 13. 2-5. §14. 

3. 1, 7, 14; elsewhere -raSe A. 15. 23 D; Tjjoe L. 10. 39; Tijvöe 
Ja. 4. 13 (Clem. Cor. ii. 12. 5 r}8e is only a conjecture). Cp. Synt. 
§ 49, 1, and inf. 4. 

3. Eelatives. — "Os, •>/, o : 6'o-tis, 7)1-1?, 6',ti ; the latter, however, 
only in the nom. sing, and plur., except that o,Tt also appears as 
ace: in meaning it becomes confused with o's, see Synt. § 50, 1. We 
have the stereotyped phrase ews '6tov in Luke and John (dtp' öYou in 1) 
L. 13. 25) ; otherwise there is no instance of these old forms (so we 
never find do-cra, a-rra for anra), in the same way that the forms tov, 
rov ( = rtVos, rtvos), tw, tw ( = Ti vi, TivL) etc. from Tis, Tts have become 
obsolete. "Oo-n-ep is only in Mc. 15. 6 n c B 3 C al. oWep yrovvTo (male 
ov TraprjT. K*AB*; the right reading in DG ov av tjtoiWo § 63, 7). 
On the use of os for a demonstrative pron. see Synt. § 46, 2. 

4. Correlative pronouns. — IIoios - toiovtos (toioo-Sc only 2 P. 1. 17 
ToiowrSe, cp. 2) — oios — 677-otos. Ilocros — rocroirros — ocros. IIjiAikos 

(G. 6. 11, H. 7. 4) - tt/Aikoutos (2 C. 1. 10, H. 2. 3, Ja. 3. 4, 
Ap. 16. i8)-?}Aiko? (Col. 2. 1, Ja. 3. 5). To these must be added 
7roT<x7ros (with similar meaning to 7rcuos), Synt. § 50, 6. On the 
correlative adverbs, see § 25. Toiovtos and too-ovtos (t?;Aiko{?tos) 
have neut. in -ov and -o (both forms are also found in Att., though 
the first is more frequent): with var. lect. Mt. 18. 5, A. 21. 25 
ß text, H. 7. 22 : with -ov only H. 12. 1 ; on the other hand 
T77A1K01JT0 Herrn. Vis. iv. 1. 10 (2. 3 with v.l.). 

5. With pronouns and pronominal forms it has also happened 
that words indicating duality as distinct from plurality have become 
obsolete (7roTepos — Tts ; eKarepos — tKacrTos), with the exception of 
d[jL(fi6T€poi (the N.T. form, never a/i^w) and eVepos, which, however, 
already becomes confused with äAAos. Cp. Synt. § 51, 6. 


1. The system of the conjugation of the verb is apparently not 
much altered from its earlier state, since nearly all the classical 
forms are found in the N.T., the dual, of course, excepted. The 
voices remain as before : and the tenses are the same, except that in 
all voices only one future exists : e'xw, e£w (the fut. o-x>/crto, which is 
derived from the aorist and related to it in meaning, never occurs); 
ILipwrjo-Kopai, /xvrjcrdi'jo-op:at (not] fut. perf., of which the 
name ' Attic future ' is sufficient indication that it was absent from 
the Hellenistic language); eo-Tr/v, <TTi')cro[iai; eo-rdOyv, o-Ta&ycro/xai, but 
not eo-Tr/^w 1 fut. perf.; </>o»Vo/zai, <£a v?;cr o/xai, but the form c/>avoupai, 
which in Attic was allied to the present as distinguished from 
(pavr/cr. which belonged to Z<pdvrjv, no longer appears (1 P. 4. 18 is a 
quotation from lxx. Prov. 11. 31). This certainly destroys the 
harmonious structure of the system of the tenses, viz. continuous 

1 For KeKp&tovrai L. 19. 40 the better attested reading is Kpd^ovcrtv b*BL 
(Kpä^ovrat D: KeKpd£ passim in lxx.)- But cp. the aor. eiciKpai-a A. 24. 21, 
inf. § 24. 

§14-1-2. §15-1-3.] SYSTEM OF CONJUGATION. 37 

action in present, past, and future time = pres. impf, and fat. of the 
present (e£w, Tifirjo-o/iai pass.) : completed action in past and future 
time = aorist and fut. of the aorist (crx^fw, Ti/x?;ö»)(ro/xat) : continuity 
of completed action in present, past, and future time = perf, plupf, 
and fut. of the perfect («rr^w, ßeß pass.). Of the moods, 
moreover, the optative is clearly on its way to becoming obsolete, 
being only found in Luke's writings with any frequency, where its 
presence is due to the influence of the literary language which 
retained it. Of the future opt. there is no trace, and this tense is, 
generally speaking, almost confined to the indie, since the use of the 
fut. infin. is, with few exceptions, limited to the Acts (11. 28, 23. 30, 
24. 15, 27. 10: cp. Synt. § 61, 3), and the fut. part, outside the 
writings of the same author (Gosp. 22. 49, Acts 8. 27, 20. 22, 22. 5, 
24. 1 7 ) is of quite rare occurrence (Mt. 27. 41 owwj/, but crwo-cu «*, 
«at owe* D Jo. 6. 64 t?], 1 C. 15. 37, H. 3. 5, 13. 17, 1 P. 3. 13, 
2 P. 2. 13 with v.l.), cp. Synt. § 61, 4. Finally, the verbal adjective 
has practically disappeared, with the exception of forms like 8war6s 
which have become stereotyped as adjectives ; the only exx. are 
TradrjTos 'liable to suffering' A. 26. 23, and ßX-qreov L. 5. 38 (n*D 
ßdWovmv) : cp. Herrn. Vis. iv. 2. 6 atpeTurepov. 

2. Periphrastic forms. — The perf. and pluperf. indie, are not 
unfrequently represented by a periphrasis (as is also the case in 
Att.), while for the perf. conjunctive (passive) a periphrasis is a 
necessity (as in Att. for the most part) ; the perf. imperat. is 
expressed periphrastically in L. 12. 35 eo-Twcrav -Kepu^oxr pkvai ; on the 
other hand we have Trefafiaxro Mc. 4. 39. By means of periphrasis 
the place of the fut. perf. may also be supplied (L. 12. 52, Mt. 16. 19, 
18. 18, H. 2. 13) ; periphrasis has, on the Avhole, a very wide range in 
the N.T., see Synt. § 62. 


1. The syllabic augment is wanting as a rule in the pluperf. (as 
also in other Hellenistic writings, but not in Att.) ; exceptions are 
chiefly in the passive (W. Schmidt de Josephi elocut. 438): eßeßX-qTo 
L. 16. 20, eTreyeypaTTTO A. 17. 23 (rjv yeypappevov D), crvveTWei vto 
J. 9. 22, TrepteSeSero 11. 44 (ireptSeS. D*), lireiroidei L. 11. 22 (ttotoiÖcv 
D), and many others. 

2. The syllabic augment, in places where in Attic it holds an 
exceptional position instead of (or in addition to) the temporal, has 
been ill maintained : wvou/wu, wvovp-tjv (Att. cwv.), w#w, Sera (e^ewcrcv 
A. 7. 45 only in N*E ; wOovv Ev. Petr. 6) : in dvoiyw, Kardyvvpt, it 
has indeed survived, but through being misunderstood has intruded 
into the other moods and the fut. (see irreg. verbs, § 24) ; irpoopup-qv 
(-w/o- B 3 P) A. 2. 25 O.T. quot.: ewpwv Jo. 6. 2 «rA al. is no doubt a 
wrong reading for edewpow (cp. ibid.). On the reduplication in 
(opoLKa, vide inf. 6. 

3. The augment ■>)- instead of e- (less frequent in Att. than in later 
writers) is always used with öeAw (Att. eöeAw, jjdeXov), never with 


ßovXofiai (a word adopted from the literary language : but r)ßovXero 
Herrn. Sim. v. G. 5) ; in Svvafiat and /xcXAw there is much variation 
in the MSB. between i)8w., ?}/*-, and e8w., ep.- (cp. W.-Schm. § 12, 3). 

4. Loss of the temporal augment. — The addition of the temporal 
augment was not without exceptions even in Attic Gk. in the case 
of an initial diphthong of which the first letter was e or o. The 
N.T. has e?£a G. 2. 5 (as in Att.), oIkoSo/jlw, oii<ooop,ij6r} nB* Jo. 2. 20, 
oiKooop.qoev B*D A. 7. 47, e7roiKoo6p.qarev 1 C. 3. 14 (eVojK. B 3 C) : on 
the other hand <pKo86p.->]oev Mt. 21. 33 all mss., ipKo86p.i]To L. 4. 29 
(olKoSo/x-qrai D), cp. evwKqoev 2 Tim. 1. 5 (-01- Only D*), K(iTMKi](rev 
(-ioev) Ja. 4. 5 O.T., TrapwKrjo-ev H. 11. 9 etc. W. H. App. 161. 
Since the original documents of the time show several instances 
of unaugmented 01, and Phrynichus refers to it as a custom of his 
time (Phryn. Rutherford, 244), it may safely be attributed to the 
writers ; besides ö (for üi) no longer bore much resemblance to oi 
(which in ordinary pronunciation somewhat inclined to ü). Cp. 
W.-Schm. § 12, 5. Ev in older Attic when augmented always 
became i]v, in the later Attic (which also used iji, et interchangeably) 
not always -, 1 in the N.T. ev preponderates, but -qv- also occurs not 
unfrequently : rjvpioKero H. 11. 5 ace. to nADE, irpoo-qv^avTo A. 8. 15 
(-ev- only B), 20. 36 (-ev- B*D), 7?v X o>jv R. 9. 3 (a5 x . DEKL). 2 For 
unaugmented cu the only ex. is 2 Tim. 1. 16 eTraio-xvvdq (-i/-N*K; 
interchange of at = e and -q ?). — The augment is Avanting in the case 
of a single short vowel in iX-qkvdeiv (as in Att.: Attic reduplic.) : in 
avkOi) for -dQt) A. 16. 26, acpkdrjo-av R. 4. 7 O.T. (e arose from the 
moods instead of ei = i: similarly lxx.) : in o<f>e\ov as a particle 
introducing a wish, cp. § 63, 5 ; other cases appear to be clerical 
errors: 8iep/xrivev(<r)ev L. 24. 27 (->;- EHKM al.), Sieyeipero Jo. 6. 18 
B al., 7rpoopu>piip' A. 2. 25 O.T.,vide supra 2, avopdudr) L. 13. 13 (-o>- 
«E al.) etc. 

5. Temporal augment tj or ci. — In general the N.T. agrees with 
Attic ; thus it has Zpyd(, t)pya(öpi)v A. 18. 3 N*AB*DE, i)pyaa-dp.r]v 

Mt. 25. 16 n*B*DL, 26. 10 k*B*D, Mc. 14. 6 h*B*D, L. 19. 16 
«*AB*DE* al., H. 11. 33 n*D* (see also R. 7. 8, 15. 18, 2 C. 7. 11, 
12. 12 ; B* reads et- only in R. 15. 18, « in all these four passages, 
DE never) as in Attic, and in the Berlin Egyptian Records 530. 15 
a-wqpya.o-a.vTo (but perf. -et-, augm. and redupl. being distinguished, 
see 6). 

6. Eeduplication. — Initial p loses its peculiarity in pepavTio-- 
fievos H. 10. 2 2 N*ACD*P for epp.: Trepipepappevos Ap. 19. 13 only 
H* (-n-epipepavTLop,. w cc ), cp. pepip.p.kvoi Mt. 9. 36 D*. (Similar forms 
in Ionian and late writers, W.-Schm. § 12, 8: Kühner, I. 8 ii. 23). 
On p for pp, vide supra § 3, 10. pvqo-TevtD, ptpvqo-Tevp.k'vi] (on the 
model of p.ip.vt)pai) L. 1. 27, 2. 5 only as a v.l. (Clem. Horn. xiii. 16: 

1 In the later Atticism this is purely phonetic, as is shown hy the fact that 
this en was also introduced as the augment for 01» : etl^tra from avt-dvu. The 
same ev appears in inscriptions of the Roman period ; but in the N.T. the only 
example is D eö^ave A. 12. 24. 

2 W.-Schm. § 12,5 6. 


Kühner, ibid. 24). eipyaa-pat (from fefepy.) as in Att. (augm. -q, see 
5) Jo. 3. 21, 1 P. 4. 3. Similarly we have eopaxa beside ewocov : in 
this case, however, the spelling ewpa/«x is very widely spread both in 
Att. and in the N.T. (1 C. 9. 1 -o- *B*D C EFGP, -w- AB 3 al. : 
Jo. 1. 18 -o- B*EFGHKX, -<o- «AB 3 CLM al. etc.). clkiew/ievos is read 
by nearly all mss. in L. 16. 20 (as if from c'Akw). 

7. Augment and reduplication in compound verbs and verbs 
derived from compounds. — Where the simple verb (with initial 
vowel) has been forgotten, the augment precedes the prepos. (so usu. 
in Att., but always in N.T.) : KadcvSw, eKadevSov ; kol6i£w, «Kaöicra, 
iKa6e(6ji,i]v, eKadr/fx-qv 1 • i}//.<£ieo-/xeyos. In addition to these N.T. has 
d<f>ia ( = dc/>t?7/u) tfcpiev Mc. 1. 34, 11. 16 (attested also in Att., but 
hardly correctly, as an alternative for d<f)la, rj^Ui), and dvoCyw, r/i/oi£a 
side by side with dvewga, rjvew^a, with inf. dveo)xdi]vai L. 3. 21 
(dvoLxti- only in D) : impf, only (St)^votye L. 24. 32, perf. act. in 
nearly all cases dvewya Jo. 1. 52 (ryvewyoTa «), 1 C. 16. 9, 2 C. 6. n. 
See irreg. verbs, § 24. Thus whereas in this instance the double 
augm. appears as against the Att. usage, dv£ypp.a.i has only the single 
augm.: dveo-xofiyv A. 18. 4 (?jv. DEHLP), dv^x^o-Oe 2 C. 11. 1 (ibid. 4, 
but BD* dvex-), C P- Moeris's dictum ?'/vecrx€To 'Attikoi, dv. "EAA^ves; 
elsewhere, too, in the N.T. there is no instance of doubly augmented 
forms of this kind. 

Verbs derived from compounds (irapao-vvdeTa) are in general 
treated like compound verbs in Attic Gk., if the first component 
part is a prepos.: the same is always the rule in NT. except in the 
case of Trpo(f>r]Teveiv : iirpo(pr]Tev(rap.ev Mt. 7. 22 «B*CLZ, Trpoecfi. 
B 2 EGM al., 11. 13 brpofajrewav «B*CDG, 7rpoe<f>. B**EFG al., (with 
similar division of MSS.) 15. 7, Mc. 7. 6, L. 1. 67, A. 19. 6 (N always 
67T/3. except in Jd. 14 7rpoe7rpo(f»]T€vo-ev : B* Zirpocp., B 3 irrpoecp., all 
others 7rpoe(/>.). 2 So also 8täKov<ä makes Siyjkovow (from Slukovos : 
does 8l6. form part of the word ?), but in Att. i8iai<6vovv (we even 
have irepLcrcrevu), Trepieao-evov in E Acts 16. 5, a form proscribed by 
Phrynichus). Verbs formed from compounds of ev, when the adverb 
is followed by a short vowel, have a tendency in the late language 
to augment this vowel : evayyekifapai, e.v-rjyyekt(op.r)v (so always) : 
evapeo-rw, evrjpea-T^Kevai H. 11. 5 nDEP (evap. AKL). 3 Verbs com- 
pounded of two prepositions tend to a double augmentation : 
uTT-eKaTea-rrj (uttok. B) Mc. 8. 25, direKaTicrTady] (oVok. DK) Mt. 12. 13: 
similarly Mc. 3. 5 (uttok. D), L. 6. 10 (parallel forms occur in 
inscriptions and the papyri) ; but in H. 12. 4 d^Te/ca-reo-T^Te is hardly 

1 'EKaupvaau Mt. 13. 15 O.T., A. 2S. 27 O.T., explains itself. Kafi/x^w from 
KaT(a)fxvu): the verb is proscribed by Phryn. Lob. 339. 

2 This verb is treated at length in Kontos KpiriKal Kai ypa/x/x. iraparrip^creis (1895), 
p. 70 ff. : see also W. Schmidt, Joseph, eloc. 442. Tlappyjaid^ofiai eirapp. does 
not come under this head (näv not vapd is imbedded in it). 

3 Hermas, Vis. iii. 1. 9 evapeaT-rjKOTwv H, evrjp. as : evjjpe<rT7]<Tav Sim. viii. 
3. 5. 

4 VERBS IN -n. TENSE FORMATION [§ id. 1-3. §17. 


1. Verbs with pure stem. — Qop'ua keeps a short vowel in the 
formation of the tenses (Att. -rj-), kcfropko-apev, <popko-opev 1 C. 15. 49 
((f^opecraL Herrn. Sim. ix. 16. 3, but perf. n-£<£op»/KOTes ibid. i); 1 
inversely {kir^Trodkui makes kirtiröOrjo-a. 1 P .2. 2 (lxx.; in old and 
Attic Gk. -ecra preponderates). Cp. kppkdyv from stem pe- Mt. 5. 2 1 
«LM al., 27 KL al., 31 nLM al., and so elsewhere interchangeably 
with kppyßrjv (cp. LXX. and other late writings), but the short 
vowel is limited in N.T. and other writings to the indie: where 
there is no augment the form is always poet's etc. Yluvdv makes 
7r«vacra>, eVea'acra. (no doubt with a, not a) L. 6. 25 etc. (so also 
lxx.); but 8n(/av, 8i\prj(Tü). With o- we have XeXovupkvoL H. 10. 23 
ND*P, but XeXovp.. as in Att. in Jo. 13. 10 (-07z- only E) : KkuXcio-pcu 
always (L. 11. 7 etc.), as against Att. -ei/xat (-ypai) ; (KXtCa-dyv as 
Att.: cp. irreg. verbs (ww/ii, xepdwvpi, cru'^w. 

2. Verbs with mute stem. — Of verbs in -£w the following have a 
guttural character : vixrrd£w, cvvo-ragav Mt. 25. 8 (Hellen.: Att. -ao-a): 
7tcu£ü>, fut. kpurai^o), aor. pass. kvaraixOi]V Mc. 10. 34, Mt. 2. 16 etc. 
(Doric and Hellen.: e7rouo-a etc. Att.); the following is dental: 
o-aXiTL^ü), o-aA.7rio-ti>, icrdXTncra (1 C. 15. 52, Mt. 6. 2 al.), Hellenistic 
for -i(y)£<* ; the following fluctuate : dpird^w, -dcrui, ■{jpiracra, -do-Orjv 
( = Att.), but -dyrjv Hellenist. 2 C. 12. 2, 4, cp. ap-a£ (Att.), apiray-i) 
(old and Att.), dpiraypos (dp7rd£w Homeric fut.) : crTrypi'^ü), -to - ««), -icra. 

L. 9. 51 BCL al. (- t £a «AD al.), 22. 32 (-f D al.), Ap. 3. 1 ACP 
(-£- nB), 2 Th. 3. 3 B, A. 15. 32 CE, elsewhere -£- (and kern) piy poa, 
cnripiyp.o<;), which was the old inflection : cp. o-ryptyg. 'App.6£u> 
(yppocrdpLrjv), crfpdfo (ecr<£a£a) are unrepresented in present and 

3. Verbs with liquid stem. — Verbs in -atvw, -cupw take only -äva, 
-dpa in the 1st aor. act., without regard to the preceding sound : 
thus k^ijpäva (p precedes) as in Att., but also kXevKäva (eV-epSava), 2 
kßdcrKäva, kcrrjpäva for Att. -vjva : eV<.(puvai from -<paiV(o L. 1. 79, 
ttva<£dvavT£s {male -4>avkvres AB*CE al.) A. 21. 3, 4>"- v V Ap. 1$. 23: 
k£eKuOäpa 1 C. 5. 7, 2 Tim. 2. 21 (eKaOapa is also sporadically 
found in 4th century Attic). 'Apai (contracted from delpai) agrees 
with Att. Perf. pass, k^ypappivos Mc. 11. 20 (Att. -aoytcu, though 
-appai is also attested), pepiappkvos Tit. 1. 15 (Att. -oyx-), cp. pepapap- 
p.kvos Herrn. Vis. iii. 11. 2 w (-acrp-as), Ka.T->]<rxvppkvo<; Mand. xii. 5. 2. 



A new present tense is formed out of the perf. (instances of which 
are forthcoming also at an earlier period : yeywvew from ykyuvo.) : 
•yprryopciv (Phryn. 118) from kypqyopa (the latter never in N.T.: 

1 The e in <pop4to is never found elsewhere except in the aorist and future active. 

2 1 C. 9. 21 HABal., but M C DEKL nep5r]cru the regular form elsewhere, cp. 
Irreg. Verbs, § 24. 

§17. §i8.] NEW PRESENT TENSE. 4I 

ypriy. LXX., never in good writers, N.T. with aor. kyp^yopt^cra) : 
o-ttiku ' stand ' from «Vn/Ka (used along with the latter word), 
Mc. 11. 25 o-t^kctc (-y]T€ ; crrrjre N), 3. 31 c^ny/covTes BC* (v.l. crrai'Tes, 
€0-tt;kot€S, eo-TWTes), 1 C. 16. 1 3 (imperat. crr/jKere), G. 5. 1 (id.), 
Ph. 4. 1 (id.), 1 Th. 3. 8 (id.), the only additional forms elsewhere 
are o-t^k« K,. 14. 4, and o-t^kctc indie. Ph. 1. 27 : thus it is almost 
confined to Pauline writings, and is mainly found in the imperat. 
(for which to-rare is the old form, ko-mJKere is unexampled). The 
word (mod. Gk. o-t€kw : o-t?;kü), Epigr. Kaibel, 970) is thoroughly 
plebeian. Other exx. of new present forms are : d|i4>idj;« for -kvvvpi 
(Hellenist., also lxx.) L. 12. 27, dpfadfa B, -cf« DL (the latter 
form, elsewhere unattested, is cited by Cramer, An. Ox. 2. 338, 
as Kotvdv, and -a£w as SwpiKov), -kvwo-i hA etc. as all MSS. read in 
Mt. 6. 30: — eVScSi'o-Kw 'put on' Mc. 15. 17 «BC (D iv8v8ia-K.) for 
tvSvo) : evSiSva-KOfiai 'put on oneself L. 8. 27 s ca A (D SvSl-) al. 
(v.L aor.), 16. 19 (lxx., Herrn. Sim. ix. 13. 5): — Kpvßw (Hellenist., 
;ee Phryn. Lob. 317 : formed from the Hellenist, aor. kKpvßi]v, like 
iypd(f>i]V from ypdffxo: see §19, 2), L. 1. 24 Trepikxpvßev impf., not 
2nd aor.: elsewhere no instances of pres. or impf, in N.T., Ev. 
Petr. 16 eKpvß6p\(.6a -. — (önro)KT«'v(v)» for -KTetVw, with extremely un- 
certain spelling : Mt. 10. 28 -KTevvovrcov (-evoV-rcov E al., -civoVtcuv B): 
Mc. 12. 5 -Krkvvovres, FG al. -kvovres, B -evvvvres, ** c -ivvtWes, MS 
-atvovTes : L. 12. 4 -evvovrwv, -evovruyv DG al., -cuv- M, -civ- B: 
2 C. 3. 6 -kwei, ACDE al. -kvti, B -dvzi. : Ap. 6. 1 1 -kwevdai, BP 
-etvecröat : 13. 10 -kvei, -evet BCP, -et va N ; here Lachm. writes -aiv£6 
(as he does in 2 C. 3. 6), Tischend, -evei. 1 The ordinary -«Vto has 
most support in Mt. 23. 37 (-cw- CGK, -ev-»), L. 13. 34 (-evv- AK 
al.). For the spelling with -w- or -v- see on x^ v ( v ) M '■ — vCittw (appar- 
ently not earlier than Hellenistic Gk., from viifw, kvL\pa) for vt(w : — 
Xtjv(v)» for x^ w (Hellenist., mod. Gk. : cp., kx^V v with 
iirXvdrjv from irkvvu)) everywhere except in Mt. 9. 17 €/<x e ' TCU 
(probably in an interpolation, cp. D) ; in Ap. 16. 1 we should write 
kKxkare aor. with B instead of -kere.' 2 The best MSS. write the word 
with w. A. 9. 22 nB*C, 21. 31 k*AB*D, 22. 20 «AB*, Mt. 26. 28 
nABCD al., similarly 23. 35, Mc. 14. 24, L. 11. 50, 22. 20; in other 
writings, however (Lob. Phryn. 726), x^' V0} i s the only recognised 
form, and this also has analogy in its favour. Cp. further in the 
table of verbs, § 24, ßXaardv, yap.l£ew, oirrdveo-dai (under opdv). 


1. The so-called Attic future of verbs in -ew, -a£w etc. disappears, 
as the name itself implies, from the Hellenistic language, and accord- 
ingly from the N.T.; therefore -ecrw, -dcrw, not -w -eis, -w -as in N.T. 

1 In Acts 3. I for äveßaivov A has dvaißevvov, C äveßevvov, in L. 10. 31 A Karai- 
ßewev. The spelling -Kraivu has, however, little probability in view of the con- 
sistent forms of the fut. -evu> and aor. -eiva ; with -evw one might compare /xe^w. 
( uiroKTeww also occurs occasionally in lxx., W. -Schm. § 15 note.) 

2 Herrn. Vis. v. 5 (rvyxvwov N ; in Sim. viii. 2. 7 irapax^iv of as should 
perhaps be emended -rrapaxecu. 

4 2 VERBS IN -ft. FORMA TION OF THE FUTURE. [§ 18. 1-3. 

Greek are correct (whilst the lxx. still has forms in -£> -as). So in 
particular KaAtu KaXecrw, tcAw TeAeo"ü> (uTroWvfMi, aVoAecrw, aVoAof/xat, 
§ 24). On the other hand, verbs in -i£w to a great extent form their 
fut., as in Att., with -iw, particularly (\V. II. ii. App., p. 1(33) in the 
3rd pers. plur. act., where the following syllable also begins with a 
cr : iXiTLovo-iv L. 1. 48, e'Scu/uoiio-iv 19. 44 etc. (only in Col. 4. 9 
y I'topta-o va-iv n c BFGP, -iovctlv K*ACD C al., whereas ibid. 7 all MSS. have 
yvwpt<rei, cp. E. 6. 21, Jo. 17. 26). In the lxx. the formation in 
-iw prevails, and this is accordingly found in O.T. quotations, 
Trapopyitj R. 10. 1 9, peroiKiio A. 7. 43. Additional exx.: Mt. 25. 32 
d(/>opio-« W*LA, -iet N C ABD al. (-lovctiv 13. 49 all MSS.): ßaTrrio-ei. 
always : Ja. 4. 8 eyyiel (-lo-ei A) : ep^avtcro), deplvw, Kadio-<i> are 
constant: 8ia.Kada.piei Mt. 3. 12, item (L. 3. 17) H. 9. 14 (nad.) ; 
Kop.iet(r6e 1 P. 5. 4, KOfxieirai Col. 3. 25 N*ACD* (-tcrerat N C BD C al.), 
E. 6. 8 « C D C al. (-lo-erai N*ABD* al.), Kop.iovp.evoi 2 P. 2. 13 (v.l. 
dSiKOvp-evoi) : crrr/pi<\o, -mt(o or -i£<», § 16, 2 : (puiTiel Ap. 22. 5 t*B, -tcrei 
AP : xa/nWcu R. 8. 32 : xpovia H. 10. 37 O.T. n c AD c al., -«ret «*D* 
(ou p) xpoi/iV>7 LXX. ed ) : x w P t0 " w - Since in O.T. quotations the -tw 
of the LXX. has not been corrupted by scribes into -urw, it appears 
that in original passages of the N.T. the reading -urea should in 
general be preferred. 

2. Future without the characteristic form of the future tense. — 
IL'o/xou agrees with the Att. form : for e'60/zou N.T. has <f>, 
L. 14. 15, 17. 8, Jo. 2. 17 O.T., Ja. 5. 2, Ap. 17. 16 (lxx. has 
e8opat passim : <fidyopai, e(f>ayov correspond to Tziopai, eiriov : 
Phryn. 327, </>ay. ßdpßapov). In place of the fut. x* w the lxx. and 
N.T. have x e( ^> X €e ' s etc -j «ex e " T€ Deut. 12. 16, 24 (Clem. Cor. 
Ü. 7. 5 iraOelrai for Tre.LO-e.Tai from 7rdVxw, cp. 

3. Whereas in Att. many active verbs form a future middle, in 
N.T. the active form is in most cases employed throughout. 
AkoiVo/acu occurs in the Acts (exc. in 28. 26 O.T. quot. -ere) and 
R. 10. 14 a wrong reading of N*DE al. for -o-oxru' N C B; but cikovo-w, 
Jo. 5. 25 (-o^Tai AD al.), 28 (item), 10. 16 al. (where there is 
diversity of reading -o~(o is preferable, since -aopai has not been 
corrupted in the Acts). 'AnapTTjo-w Mt. 18. 21 (Herrn. Bland, iv. 
1. I, 2) : äiravTTJo-o) Mc. 14. 13 : apirdo-u Jo. 10. 28 (**DLX ov pi] 
apTrdo-y) : ß\e\|/co Acts 28. 26 O.T.: "yeXdo-w L. 6. 21 : (Yvuerojiat. as 
ordinarily): 8no£a> Mt. 23. 34 al.: 1 (eo-$iw, (pdyopai, see 2): fi "« 
Jo. 5. 25 mBDL (-ovrai A al.), 6. 51 «DL (-erat BC al), 57 ABC- 
(-cTat Yl al., £>/ C*D), with diversity of reading ibid. 58 and so 
passim, frjo-opai. all MSS. in Jo. 11. 25, R. 8. 13. £>/o-o> (1 Th. 5. 10, 
see § 05, 2) 2 Tim. 2. 1 1 (aw^o-opev ; -w/zev CLP is only a cor- 
ruption) : both forms also occur in Att. : (diroBavovpai as usual) : 
davpdo-ovTai Ap. 17. 8 «B, correctly for N.T. 6avpao~di)o~ovTa<. AP 
(from 6avpd£opai = -w, cp. 13. 3): «Xaver« L. 6. 25, Jo. 16. 20, Ap. 
18. 9 (wrongly -ovrcu «A, though so read in Herrn. Vis. iii. 3. 2) : 

1 'JZiriopK-fiiTu) Mt. 5. 33 is also the Att. form : KaTewiopK^ubnevos Demosth. 54. 
40 is passive. 



Kpdjjo) L. 19. 40 nBL, Ki.Kpa£ovTai AR al. as in Att. and lxx., 
Kpägovrai D : (Xt](fj.)\pofJiai, oipojj,ai as usual) : iraßjw Mc. 10. 34 : 
(Treo-ov/xai, Triofiai as usual) : pcvcrco Jo. 7. 38: o-irov8do-<o 2 P. 1. 15 
(-d(w n) : ontvavT^o-w (cp. aVav-r. : no Attic instance of fut. from crw- 
avTw) L. 22. 10, A. 20. 2 2 : (re^o^ou, <£eu£o/zai, xaprjcrop.a.L as usual). 1 


1. 1st aorist act. in -o-a instead of 2nd aorist. — ( T H£a) beside r/yayov 
is seen in ewd£as 2 P. 2. 5, eVio-uva^ai L. 13. 34, avvd^avres A. 14. 27 D 
(found at the least in dialects, LXX., and late writers): fuxdpTi]o-a side 
by side with r\p.a.prov R. 5. 14, 16, Mt. 18. 15, Herrn. Mand. iv. 3. 6, 
vi. 2. 7 etc. (Empedocl., LXX., Lob. Phryn. 732) : «ßfcoo-a 1 P. 4. 2 
(the better Att. form is kßuov), efocra often takes the place of 
the last word (Ionic and late, not Att.) A. 26. 5 etc.: «ßXd<rTi]o-a 
Mt. 13. 26, H. 9. 4, causative Ja. 5. 18 as in lxx. Gen. 1. n 
(Empedocl., late writers), never eßXaarov : <!8uo-a intrans. for e'Sw 
Mc. 1. 32 BD (e8v H A etc.), L. 4. 40 SvaavTos D, Svvavros a few mss., 
8vvovtos most mss.: <-Kpa£a, as in late writers, almost always (dvenpayov 
L. 23. 18 kBL, Herrn. Vis. iii. 8. 9) except A. 24. 21 eKCKpaga «ABC 
as LXX.: &ei4ra (late) A. 6. 2 (KcrreA.), L. 5. 11 D (id.), Mc. 12. 19 N 
KaTaXei\prj for -A(e)t7n/, elsewhere eXnrov. 2 The assimilation to the 
fut. is everywhere well marked. — A new 2nd aor. dve'GaXov is formed 
from dvaßdXXco Ph. 4. 10 (LXX.), apparently in causative sense 
(dve8dXere to inrep ip.ov <f>poveLi>), unless tov should be read with FG ; 
cp. §§24: 71, 2. 

2. 2nd aorist passive for 2nd aorist active. — 'Ec/^v for tyw, <$>vkv 
(crvp.<f>vei<Tai) L. 8. 6 ff., £K<fn>rj Mt. 24. 32=Mc. 13. 20 (like eppv-qv; 
late). So also Trapeia-^v-qcrav for -va-av is read by B in Jd. 4. 

3. 1st and 2nd aorist (and future) passive. — In the passive voice 
the substitution of the 2nd aor. for the 1st is a very favourite idiom. 
i)yyeXr)v L. 8. 20 obr. (lxx., and as early as Att.) : t)v oi 'w Mc. 7. 35 
(-01X0- A al.), A - 12 - IO (rX e V EHLP), Ap. 11. 19 (-X&? B), 15. 5 side 
by side with -x^W (Att. nas 1st aor.) : fut. -y-^a-ofiai Mt. 7. 7, 
L. 11. 10 nAC al., avotyeTcci BD (as also B in Mt. loc. cit.), but 
-X^o-o/xat L. 11. 9f. (A)(D)EF al: fa™^ 2 C. 12. 2, 4 (late) for 

Att. rjpirdadrjv (so Ap. 12. 5 ACP, t)Ut -ay?/ N, -dx^i] B), with fut. 

-y^o-o/xat 1 Th. 4. 17: €Kat]v (Horn., Ionic, late writers) Ap. 8. 7, 
1 C. 3. 15 (2 P. 3. 10), elsewhere, as in Att., we have the 1st aor. and 
the fut. formed from it ; «Kpvßrjv Mt. 5. 14, etc. In these new 2nd 
aorist forms there was a preference for the medial letters as the 
final sound of the stem, even though as in the last instance (i<pv<l>-) 
the stem strictly had another termination (-<j>6rjv Att., -4>7)v poet.) : 

cp. pres. Kpvßoj § 17 : KaTcvv-yTiv Acts 2. 37 : Si€Td-yT]v G. 3. 19, VTreTayrjv 

R. 8. 20, 10. 3 al., Trpoa-erdyy] Herrn. Mand. iv. 1. 10 (this writer also 

1 Xaprj(TOfiaL is also to be regarded as Att. fut. of the aorist, as compared with 
Xcupyau fut. of the present. 

2 Herrn. Sim. viii. 3. 5 has KareXeuf/ev along with -urev. Clem. Cor. ii. 5 
KaraXei^avras, 10 -\d\pwixev. 

44 VERBS IN -ü. DEPONENT VERBS. [§ 19. 3-4. § 20. 

has wpvyrj for -X^ 7 ?) from opvo-crto Sim. ix. 6. 7), viroTayi'jo-oLiai 
1 C. 15. 28, H. 12. 9 (Barn. 19. 7), but L. 17. 9 f. Wax^vra as in 
Attic, ^i'xw makes \|/vyT|<r£Tai Mt. 24. 12 (-x^o-ctcu K ; late writers 
even say \pvyio, Lob. on Soph. Ajax, p. 373' 2 : cp. iKpvßr/v - Kpvßw). 
New 1st aorists (for what in Attic is expressed by a different verb) 
are hk-^di^v L. 2. 11, Mt. 2. 2 (Att. tyev6p,j)v) : aTT€KTu.v6i}v passim ( Att. 
airkdavov). A substitute for 2nd aor. is Ik\16i)v (poet.), the regular 
form (also kKlOi'icto for Att. kuXlvip'. 

4. On the intermixture of terminations of the 1st and 2nd aor. 
act. and mid. see § 21, 1. 



1. Aorist passive for aorist middle. — 'E-yevTjetiv (Hellenist., Phryn. 
108, LXX.) in addition to kyf.v6p.qv : Mt. 6. 10, 9. 29, 15. 28, 26. 42 
imperat. yei'?/ö?/Tw, in O.T. quot. eyevijOr/ 21. 42 ; elsewhere only 
11. 23 -v,)6 W av «BCD, 28. 4 kBC*DL ; Mc. and Jo. (including Epp. 
and Apoc.) never have this form except in O.T. quotations, so also 
L. Gosp., but 10. 13 ( = Mt. 11. 23) -v>j9 W av «BDLH, 18. 23 -i^ftj 
«BL : in Acts the only instance is 4. 4 all mss. -vrjdrj, but D also 
has it in 7. 13, 20. 3, 16; it is frequent, however, in the epistles of 
Paul and Peter, and in Hebrews. Cp. the perfect yeykvi] (found 
in Att.) in addition to ykyova. 'AireKpiÖTjv (Hellenist., Phryn. 108) is 
universal, Luke alone uses the Attic form direKpLvdp.rjv as well, 3. 16 
(23. 9, L correctly -vero), A. 3. 12 (D is different), and always in. the 
indie; otherwise the latter form is only found with var. lect. : 
Mt. 27. 12 (D correctly -o-o), Mc. 14. 61 (-tö»; D; -vctoI), Jo. 5. 17, 
19, 12. 23. The corresponding fut. is diroKpiO' So also 
L'TTOKpivo/iai 'dissemble,' vireKpiOrjv, a-vvvir^Kpid^a-av G. 2. 13 (Herrn. 
Sim. ix. 19. 3, as Polyb.), StaKplvopai 'doubt,' SitKpidrjv. 'Aire- 
Xoyi]di)v L. 21. 14, -»;cra/x?;v 12. 11, but Clem. Alex. ii. 35 f. Dd. 
(quotation) -ijdrjre (Att. direXoy-qo-dpqv, but the other aor. too is 
very old). Again, only makes ^yepBtiv (found in Att.), 

never ?;y pop.rjv \, (e-Tr)avaira.T|o-0|Aai L. 10. 6 «B* (-aiVerai 
rell.), Ap. 14. 13 «AC (ibid. 6. II -avo-ovrai or -wvtcu all MSS., 
and so elsewhere ; but Herrn. Vis. i. 3. 3 n, iii. 9. 1 « k-d-qv, 
and KaTaTrarjo-erai Pap. Londin. p. 113, line 916; 6Kavo-a, £kcu;v 
corresponds to cVauo-a, «raijv). To verbs expressive of emotion, 
which also in Att. take a passive aorist, belong (found 
along with -tw, § 24), ^aMidetiv (-o-0qv BL) Jo. 5. 35 (but 8. 56 
-ao-dp.-qv, and so elsewhere) : (8avp.d£op,at, late form) «Gavfidcr&rjv 
Ap. 13. 3 A {-avjiao-ev «BP, -avp.aa-Ti.odq C), -o-dqaopat. 17. 8, cp. 
§ 18, 3 (the act. -a£w occurs in Ap. 17. 7 and regularly elsewhere;]v in pass, sense 2 Th. 1. 10): Oa/ißelaOaL Mc. 1. 27 
edap.ßt'j8qo-av {-ßqo-av D), dapßqdkvre; A. 3. 1 1 D, cp. impf. Mc. 10. 
24, 32, but 6afi.ßQ)v A. 9. 6 D as in Horn. etc. — AieAe^aro A. 17. 2 
«AB (-k x 6 v DE), 18. 19 «AB (-k x 8q EHLP) is a wrong reading for 
SuXeyero ; the Attic 8uXkx9qv stands in Mc. 9. 34. 'Xpvelo-dai and 

§ 20. 1-2. § 21.] VERBS IN -ft. TERMIN A TIONS. 45 

O.TT- have only the aor. mid. (Att. more often aor. pass.; a corrupt 
active form dirapvTJa-aL occurs in Herrn. Sim. i. 5). 

2. The future passive (i.e. strictly the aoristic fut., see § 14, 1) is 
found with other verbs similar to those mentioned : (ev^pavdrjo-opat 
only B for pres. Ap. 11. 16) Koi^GTio-ofiai 1 C. 15. 51, pt€Ta|A€\ti0T|<ro(iai 
H. 7. 21 O.T. quot., <J>avTjo-o|iai. ((jmvov/iai 1 P. 4. 18 O.T. quot.), 
4>oßt]9TJo-o|icH H. 13. 6 O.T. On the Other hand: yevrjuopai, uvvqaopai, 
€m|A«\T|a-o| 1 Tim. 3. 5 : 7ropeucropai (L. 11. 5 etc.). 


1. As early as Attic Greek there is not wanting an intermediate 
form between the 1st and 2nd aor. act. mid., with the terminations 
of the 1st aor. but without its o- : dwa beside dirov, -ijveyKa beside 
r/veyKov. The Hellenistic language had a tendency to extend this 
type to numerous aorists which in classical Greek had the termin- 
ations of the 2nd aor. throughout : dXa, -dp-qv, evpa, -dp-qv etc. 
(Kühner I. 3 ii. 104). Still this process, by means of which the 
second aorist was eventually quite superseded, is in the N.T. far 
from complete. Elira (W. H. App. 164) keeps a unchanged in the 
forms with t (as also in Att.): dirare, -arw, -dYcoo-av; also fairly 
often before p : d7T€nrdp.e6a 2 C. 4. 2, Trpoeiirapev 1 Th. 4. 6 (-0- AKL 
al.); efiras Mt. bis, L. semel, Mc. 12. 32 with v.l. -es «*DEF al., 
Jo. 4. 1 7 -es «B* ; -av has preponderant evidence ; rarely e^a as 
in A. 26. 15 ; imperat. eiVe and dirov (for accent, Lob. Phr. 348) 
interchangeably ; the part eiVas is rare (A. 22. 29 -wv HLP), ei'7rao-a 
hardly occurs (in Jo. 11. 28 all mss. have etVovo-a in the first place, 
BC* have -ao-a in the second ; -ao-a Herrn. Vis. iii. 2. 3 M, iv. 3. 7 «*) ; 
on the other hand etVovros etc., elirdv. "Hi'eyK-a has a except in 
the infin. (only 1 P. 2. 5 has aveveyKcu, always -av in Joseph., 
W. Schm. de Joseph, elocut. 457) ; imp. Mt. 8. 4 irpoa-eveyKe (-ov BC), 
Trap- Mc. 14. 36, L. 22. 42 (male vv. 11. -cu L. al., -dv AQ al.). 
Other verbs never have inf. in -at nor part, -as, nor yet imperat. 
2 sing, in -ov; on the other hand these forms occur: üßa\av A. 16. 
37 BD, 21. 27 N*A (err-), Mc. 14. 46 «B (eV-), (cgeßaXav Mc. 12. 8 B, 
cp. Mt. 13. 48 D, 21. 39 D, Ap. 18. 19 C) ; elSav Mt. 13. 17 «B, 
L. 10. 24NBC al., Mc. 6. 33 D etc.: ei'Sauev Mt. 25. 37 B*L Mc. 2. 
12 CD, 9. 38 DN : et'oare L. 7. 22 A, Jo. 6. 26 C : eZSa Ap. 17. 3 A, 
6 «A ; in these instances -ov has far the most support from the MSS. 
It is otherwise with elXov, -Xa: etAai-o 2 Th. 3. 10 (-cto K), Herrn. 
Sim. V. 6. 6: aWAare A. 2. 23, -aro 7. 21 (-ero P), -av 10. 39 (-ov 
HLP): egeiXaro 7. 10 (-era H), 12. 11 (-cto P), -d M v 23. 27 (-d>r?v 
HLP), but -&rOai 7. 34 O.T. quot. Efya has only slender attesta- 
tion : evpdfiwos H. 9. 12 (-o-D*), -av L. 8. 35 B*, Mt. 22. 10 D, 
A. 5. 10 AE, 13. 6 A: -auev L. 23. 2 B*L al. Again there is 
preponderant evidence for '{irta-a, -av, -aTe (G. 5. 4) : imp. -aTe 
L. 23. 30 (-ere «*ABD al.), Ap. 6. 16 (-ere «BC). 'H\6a Ap. 10. 9 A 
(-ov«BCP), -a^ev A. 27. 5 «A, 28. 16 A. 21. 8 B, Mt. 25. 39 D: 
-av is often interchanged with -ov : but the imp. lAöaTe, kkddrw is 

4 6 VERBS IN il. TERMIN A TIONS. [§ 21. 1-6. 

attested by the mass of the MSS. All other instances are quite 
isolated : airkdavav Mt. 8. 32 « b , L. 20. 31 B*, Jo. 8. 53 D* : eAaßav, 
-a/iev, -are Jo. 1. 12 and 1 Jo. 2. 27 B*, L. 5. 5 A : eViav 1 C. 10. 
4 D* etc. 

2. The (mod. Gk.) extension of the terminations -a, -as etc. to 
the imperfect is rare, and in no case unanimously attested. E^av 
Mc. 8. 7 mBDA, A. 28. 2 «AB, 8. 10«, Ap. 9. 8 «A (9 -ov omn.), 
L. 4. 40 D, Jo. 15. 22, 24 D* (rell. -ov or -oo-av) : -a/zev 2 Jo. 5 «A : 
üXc-yav Jo. 11. 56 «D, 9. io, 11. 36**, A. 28. 6 B. According to 
Buresch, Rh. Mus. 46, 224, these forms should not be recognised in 
the N.T., since the MSS. supporting them are quite thrown into the 
shade by the enormous mass of those which support -ov, -es etc. 

3. The (aoristic) termination -av for -ao-t in the 3rd pers. plur. 
perf. (Alexandrian according to Sext. Emp. adv. gramm. 213) is not 
frequent either in the lxx. or in the N.T., and in the latter is 
nowhere unanimously attested, so that its originality is subject to 
the same doubt with the last exx. (Buresch, p. 205 ff.). The 
instances are: ewpaxav L. 9. 36 BC 2 LX, Col. 2. 1 «*ABCD*P : 
TerrjpyjKav BDL Jo. 17. 6: eyvwKav ABCD al., ibid. 7 (eVr^crav - 
eyvwv «) : Goreo-TaA/cdv «AB A. 16. 36 : elo-eXrjkvdav BP Ja. 5. 4 : 
yeyovav R. 16. 7 «AB, Ap. 21. 6 N C A (-a N*BP, Buresch) : 7re7r(T)wKav 
18. 3 AC : cip/Kciv 19. 3 «AP. 

4. The termination -a-av for -v in the 3rd pers. plur. in Hellenistic 
and N.T. Greek is constant in the imper. (also in the pass, and mid. 
as Trpocrevgdo-OoxTav Ja. 5. 14); in the impf. (Hellenist., Kn. ii. 3 55) 
it is found in eSoAioüo-av R. 3. 13 O.T. quot.: also ei'xocrav Jo. 15. 
22, 24 «B al. (dxav D* etxov AD 2 which makes a very serious 
ambiguity), TrapeXdßocrav 2 Th. 3. 6 K*AD* (-ere BFG, -ov « C D C0 "E al., 
somewhat ambiguous). The forms are apparently authentic, since 
they were hardly current with the scribes, except in contract verbs, 
where these forms are also found in mod. Gk. , cp. Wopvßova-av D 

A. 17. 5 (KaTOiKOiHrav ? D 2. 46 ; D • also has i/^Aac^/o-aicrai', evpoio-av 

in 17. 27, see 5 ; Herrn. Sim. vi. 2. 7 zvo-radovo-av, ix. 9. 5 JSoKouo-av). 
Cp. Buresch, 195 ff. 

5. The termination -es for -a? (in perf. and 1st aor.) 1 is not only 
quite unclassical, but is also only slenderly attested in the N.T. : 
Ap. 2. 3 KeKOTTiaKes AC, 4 ct^Kes «C : e'Ar/Avöes A. 21. 2 2 B, ewpaKts 
Jo. 8. 57 B* eow/ces 17. 7 AB, 8 B, etAr^es Ap. 11. 17 C etc. 
(W.-Schm. § 13, 16; Buresch, 219 ff.; eiwfcs Papyr. of Hyperides 
c. Philipp, col. 4. 20). 

6. The rare optative has 3rd sing, of the 1st aor. in ai (also Clem. 
Cor. i. 33. 1 eao-ou), not the better Att. -eie ; and a corresponding 3rd 
plur. in aiev : Troiycrauv L. 6. n BL (-eiev «A, -eiav Att. EKM al.: 
D has quite a different reading) : A. 17. 27 ^Aa^o-eiav B al., 
-eiev «E, -aio-av and ibid, eiyjoicrav D, which may be correct (cp. 

1 Apollonius, Synt. i. 10, p. 37: 37, p. 71, attests etpTjKes, 2ypa\(/es, ypa^ru for 
-as, -drw as forms about which grammarians were in conflict. 'A^Kere B* 
Mt. 23. 23. 

§ 21. 6-8. § 22. 1-2.] CONTRACT VERBS. 47 

LXX. alvecraicrav Gen. 49. 8, eXdoicrav Deut. 33. 16, W.-Schm. § 13, 
14, note 14), since the scribes of D and of its ancestors certainly did 
not find the optative in the living language. 

7. The plupf. of course keeps et (not e) in the plur.: 7re7rot?JKeio-av 
Mc. 15. 7 etc. 

8. The 2nd pers. sing, of the pres. and fut. pass, and mid. 
regularly ends (as also in the older Attic) in -y ; the later Attic et 
(771 and et interchangeable, § 3, 5) is found only in the word ßot'Aet, 
borrowed by Luke from the literary language (L. 22. 42 -A77 FGR al.; 
cp. Herrn. Sim. ix. 11. 9 ßovky, v. 5. 5 apparently ßovXei), = öeAets 
of the popular language. Along with -#, the termination -<rai, esp. 
frequent in contract verbs in -aw, corresponding to the forms -fxai, 
-Tat as in the perf., is a new formation of the popular language 
which coincides with the primitive ending, and in mod. Greek has 
affected verbs of all classes. 1 'OSwao-ai L. 16. 25 : K-ai^acrat 1 C. 4. 7, 
R. 2. 17, 23, 11. 18 : also (payeo-at, 7rt'ecrat L. 17. 8. (Herrn. Vis. ii. 
4. 1 -Aavacrat : Sim. i. 3 xpao-ai [Vis. iii. 6. 7 the same form, but 
corrupt], ix. 2. 6 eVto-7rao-at.) These should be regarded as the 
regular forms in the N.T., since o6wa, 4>ayy, irLrj are not represented. 2 


1. Verbs in -d«. — Zrjv takes -q as in Att., but ireivav, Siifav take a 
for rj as in other Hellenist, writings (cp. kirdvaxra, § 16, 1). (From tfjv 

1 sing. impf, egqv R. 7. 9 B for e^wr. 3 ) From xp^P- ai we have XP^ Tat 
in 1 Tim. 1. 8 nD al., xPW 7 l TaL -A-P, otherwise there is no apposite 
example ; xpaadai is Hellenistic, cp. Clem. Cor. ii. 6. 5 A, § 21, 7, 
W.-Schm. § 13, 24. — Confusion of -aw and -ew : ^pwrow Mt. 15. 23 
kABCD, Mc. 4. 10 kC, Jo. 4. 31 C (no MS. in 4. 40 [9. 15 X], 12. 21), 
A. 16. 39 A; no other form of this vb. with on: — kveßpijiovvro 
Mc. 14. 5 «C* -p-ovfievos Jo. 11 38 KAU: — kottiovctiv Mt. 6. 28 B: — 
viKovvTL Ap. 2. 17 AC, 2. 7 A (-ovTi B), 15. 2 C: — KaTeyeAow L. 8. 
53 D*KX etc. Cp. mod. Gk.; W.-Schm. § 13, 26.— On -aVat, 

2 pers. sing, pass., see § 21, 7. 

2. Verbs in -e'».— Uncontracted contrary to the rule is e'Seei-o 
L. 8. 38 (-etro N a BC 2 LX, -eetTo AP formed out of -eero with correction 
et written over it), cp. Clem. Horn. iii. 63, «aTeppee Apoc. Petr. 26, 
Phryn. 220. — Confusion of -ew and -aw : eAewvros R. 9. 16 (-owtos 
B 3 K), eAeare Jd. 22 **BC 2 , 23 nAB (there is much variety of reading 
in this verse) ; but R. 9. 18 lAee? «A 2 BD C L al., eAea only in D*(E)FG 
(otherwise no exx. of such forms from eAew : both forms found in 

1 Cp. Lob. Phryn. 360. 

2 It is other-wise -with verbs in -ew : L. 23. 40 (poßrj <r6, Herrn. Vis. iii. 1. 9 
\virfi, but 10. 7 airtaai, i.e. afrelaai H for alre?s as. From verbs in -6w, d7re£e- 
vovcrai (sic) LXX. 3 Kgs. 14. 6, diaßeßaiovcTai. Clem. Horn. xvi. 6. x a P'e^ a '> from 
Xapiovßai., occurs as early as 3rd cent. B.c. on an Egyptian papyrus. Grenfell- 
Hunt, Greek Papyri, series ii. (1897), p. 29. 

3 "Ef7ji> also occurs in Demosth. 24. 7 nearly all mss., Eur. Ale. 295 v.l., Phrvn. 
Lob. 457. Cp. ai^tfit, Herrn. Mand. iv. 1. 9 ; Kühner, Gr. I. 3 ii. 436. 

4 8 VERBS IN -MI. [§ 22. 2-3. § 23. 1-2. 

lxx. : l the tenses have ■>], though «aw has eacrw) : — eAAdya Philem. 
18, -« «°D C0,T EKL, -arai R 5. 13 only«* (and e'AAoyoVo A); the 
Hellenistic vb. elsewhere employs -etvß 

3. Verbs in -6«.— Infin. -olv ( = deiv) for -ovv : KaTao-Kyvolv Mt. 13. 32 
B*D, Mc. 4. 32 B* : diroSeKarolv H. 7. 5 BD* : fapolv 1 P. 2. 15 N*: 
but Trkifpovv all uncials in L. 9. 31, and it is the constant form in 
lxx., so that the termination -olv is hardly established for the 
N.T. Cp. W.-Schm. § 13, 25 : Hatzidakis Einl. in d. neugr. Gramm. 
193. — The conjunctive is regular in ei'oSwTcu 1 C. 16. 2 (SwOrj 
n c ACI al.) : on the other hand it takes the indie, form in G. 4. 17 
(i]\ovt€, 1 C. 4. 6 4>vo-Lovo-dt (just as the sing, of the conj. act. is 
identical with the indie, and in vbs. in -aw the whole conjunctive). 

§ 23. VERBS IN -ML 

1. The conjugation in -yut, which from the beginning of the Greek 
language gradually gives way to the other conjugation in -w, and 
which has eventually entirely disappeared in modern Greek, in 
spite of many signs of decay is not yet obsolete in the N.T. In 
vbs. in -w|w (and in 6'AAv/u), which in Attic and other early writers 
have already a very strong rival in the forms in -(i')vw, the older 
method of formation has not yet disappeared in the N.T., and is 
especially the prevalent form (as in Att.) in the passive : Mt. 8. 25 
aVoAAiyxeoa, 9. 17 a7roAAuTat, etc. Active föTMS : SeiKW/xi 1 C. 12. 31 
(never -vw in this form), SeiKvi'eis Jo. 2. 18 (never -us), ffcUwo-iv 
Mt. 4. 8 (n -vvei), Jo. 5. 20 (-vvei D, but ibid. D -wo-iv for Seilet), 
cp. d/xc/uewMxiv § 24 j but aVoAAvei Jo. 12. 25 (v.l. -eo-ei), öfjLvvei 
Mt. 23. 20 ff. (from this verb there is no certain form in -/zt), 
o/jlvvovo-lv H. 6. 16. Imperf. only in -w form : f^wvvi^s Jo. 21. 8, 
(ti7r)eo-TpwVvuoi/ Mt. 21. 8 (v.l. eo-rpixxrav), Mc. 11. 8 D, L. 19. 36. 
Imperat. aVdAAve R. 14. 15, ofivvere Ja. 5. 12, o-ßevvvre 1 Th. 5. 19. 
Infin. ofxvveiv Mt. 26. 74, Mc. 14. 71 (-wai BEHLal.), SeiKvtW 16. 21 
(-vvcu B). Partie. aVoAAiW Ap. 9. 11, SetKvvovTos 22. 8 (-i'ttos s) : 
but V7ro£o)VVVVTes A. 27. 17, a7ro8eiKvvvra 2 Th. 2. 4 (-vovtol AFG). 

2. In verbs in -dvcu, -evat, -di/at there are similar transitions to the 
w conjugation, -wicmj/u R. 16. 1, o-vvlo-tijo-i 3. 5, 5. 8, 2 C. 10. 8 are 
a few certain relics of the active of these forms in -dvai (undoubtedly 
from the literary language) ; elsewhere this verb takes the form 
of lo-Tavav (Hellenist.), for which lo-rdv (more often than in 
lxx.) is a frequent v.l., occasionally also the plebeian cndvt.iv 
(ä7TOKaTao-Tcu'£6S A. 1. 6 D, 17. 15 KaTacrTou'Oi'T£S D*, Mc. 9. 12 
aVoKaTao-Tctvei N*D, -Ticrraret B*). Thus : o-wicrrdveiv 2 C. 3. I, FG 
-dvai, BD* -av : 4. 2 awio-TavTes nCD*FG, -wi'Tes D c EKL, -avovTcs 
ABP, a similar division of the MSS. in 6. 4 (-witcs is also read by 
h c ) : 1 C. 13. 2 fitdio-rdvciv ACKL, -dvai nBDEFG (this is the only 
instance where a /u.t form is strongly supported as a v.l.) : (j.eOio-Tavei 

1 W.-Schm. § 13, 26, note 26. 

2 On this confusion of -dui and -iu see Hatzidakis, Einl. in d. neugr. Gr. 128. 

§23-2-4.] VERBS IN -MI. 49 

Herrn. Vis. i. 3. 4. TLifj.Tr\.av stands for iriixirkavai in A. 14. 17 
ifjLTri(fjL)Tr\u)v (lxx.). The passive remains unaffected by this change 
(cp. 1): TT€pucrTa<TO 2 Tim. 2. 16, Tit. 3. 9, KadicrTaTai H. 5. i etc. 
([e//.]7ri//,7r/Dacr#cu A. 28. 6, Tisch, -acrdai), Kpefiarai Mt. 22. 40, Kpepd- 
yuevos A. 28. 4, G. 3. 13 O.T. quot.: SO also, kT?'ujTa\xai as 
usual, except that, -6/xeda, -6/xevos are read by B or B* in 
Mt. 19. 12, 26. 53, Mc. 10. 39, A. 4. 20, 27. 15 (also in the papyri), 
cp. igexpefieTo L. 19. 48 «B : and Sivn] stands for Swao-cu in 
Mc. 9. 22 f. » (or x c ) BD al., 1. 40 B, L. 16. 2 kBDP (v.l. -jj<r V ), 
Ap. 2. 2, but -ao-ou is read by all MSS. in Mt. 5. 36, L. 5. 12, 6. 42, 
Jo. 13. 36 (Phryn. 359 : still 8vvy or -ex. is already found in Attic 
poets). Cp. W.-Schm. § 14, 17; both forms are found in Hermas, 
e.g. Svvy Vis. ii. 1. 3, iii. 10. 8, -ao-at, iii. 8. 5. — On eo-ryv vide infra 4. 

3. TC8i]|u, 8i8w|«. — The pres. indie, as in Att. ; ndi, i.e. rWu, occurs 
in L. 8. 16 D; TrapaSlSias is also found L. 22. 4; SiSw only occurs in 
Ap. 3. 9 AC 1 (-w/u BP, SeSojKa n). But in the impf, the forms eridet, 
ZSiSov are already found in Att. and so in N.T.; 3rd plur. hWovv 
A. 3. 2, 4. 35 (cp. for Attic, Bekk. Anecd. i. 90), also 8. 17 according 
to D*EHLP (-ea-av «AD 2 , -ocrav B, -eiaav C), Mc. 6. 56 ADN al. (-eaav 
nBLA): iSiSow A. 4. 33, 27. 1, Mc. 15. 23, but A. 16. 4 -oo-av (-ow 
HLP), Jo. 19. 3 «B ; the forms in -ow are to be preferred. Imperat. 
rt'öei, StSov as in Att. But SlScopa in the passive goes over to the 
to conjugation, the analogy between the two forms being very close : 
SuSlSeTo A. 4. 35 (-0T0 B 3 P), TrapeScSero 1 C. 11. 23 (-oto B 3 LP), and 
so 2nd aor. mid. dneStro H. 12. 16 AC, cp. Mt. 21. 33 **B*CL, Mc. 
12. 1 nAB*CKL, L. 20. 9 k*AB*CL; but dTreSoo-öe A. 5. 8 all mss.— 
For pres. conj. see 4. 

4. 2nd aorist active and middle. — "Eo-t^v is found as an alternative 
for io-Tadrjv, see 6 ; tWyj^l, S/Sw^t employ the 2nd aor. only in the 
mid., while WrjKa^v, -are, -av, Z8ü>Kap.zv 2 etc. are the aor. act. forms 
in use (only L. 1. 2 has a 2nd aor. act. 7rapeSoo-av, literary language 
in the preface). From other verbs eßyv, 4'yvwv may be added. The 
indie, is regular (for the mid. cp. 3). The conj. to e'SwKa (and 
8t8wp.L) 4'yvwv shows great fluctuation (2 sing. Sws Mt. 5. 25) : in the 
3rd sing., which through the loss of the 1 in pronunciation had 
become identical with the 1st sing., beside <$<£ (StSy) and yvw we also 
have the forms So? (81S0I), yvol or 8wrj (identical with the optat.). 
This last form, however, is almost confined to the Pauline Epistles, 
where the scribes often met with the optat., which was not cur- 
rent in their own day, and therefore introduced it occasionally 
for the conj. (vide infra): E. 1. 17 8a>r) most MSS. (6w B), 3. 16 
&% only DEK al., 2 Tim. 2. 25 8a> v k*ACD*P (Jo. 15. 16 8<!> v 

1 Ai5w Tisch., others 8idw, cp. äwoScdow for -6v A Ap. 22. 2 (irapaMSuv « Mt. 
26. 46, D Mc. 14. 42, J. 18. 2, 21. 20). In Hermas ridw occurs Vis. i. 1. 3, 
ii. 1. 2 ; Clem. Cor. i. 23 dirodiSou Examples from the papyri in W. Schmidt, 
Gtg. Gel. Anz. 1894, 45. 

2 No inference for an aor. £5w<ra can be drawn from 'Iva ... ddicrrj Jo. 17. 2 
N C AC al. (v.l. -o-u, -<r«, 5w etc.) : nor yet from Mc. 6. 37 äyopävwpev ... öilxrwßev 
(HBD, v.l. -cro/xev and dQ/xev), see § 65, 2. 


50 VERBS IN -MI. [§23.4-6. 

EGH al.; airoholrj D* 1 Th. 5. 15). It is more difficult to decide 
between 6w, yv$ and Sol, yvol (the latter like £>/A.oi) : still yvCp has the 
greater attestation (Jo. 7. 51, 11. 57 [yvol D*], 14. 31, A. 22. 
24 : whereas yvol has equal or greater authority in its favour in 
Mc. 5. 43, 9. 30, L. 19. 15); also (u7ro)6w all MSB. in Mt. 18. 30, 
the same form or 6wy all MSS. in E. 1. 17, 3. 16, 2 Tim. 2. 25, 
Jo. 15. 16 (« Swo-a), cp. 13. 29 (Sot D). — The optat. owv? is Hellenistic 
(Phryn. 345 f., Moeris) 1 and in Paul. Epp. R. 15. 5 etc. — Imperat. 
dvdo~T7)dL and ävdo-Tä A. 12. 7, E. 5. 14 O.T. quot. (-'yro», -r/re are con- 
stant), dvdßä Ap. 4. T (-r]6i A), fj-eraßa Mt. 17. 20 along with 
fxerdßi]9t Jo. 7. 3, KaTa/3?;#t Mt. 27. 40 etc., irpoo-avdßi)6i L. 14. 10; 
this verb also has -ßarw, -ßäre Mt. 24. 17, 27. 42, Ap. 11. 12 (-»?Te B) 
like Ti'/xa, -a-re. 2 

5. Perfect active. — Of the perfects formed after a partial analogy 
to verbs in -fju, arrqKa limits these shorter forms to the infin. 'Ecn-avai 
L. 13. 25, A. 12. 14, 1 C. 10. 12 (no other form: also usu. in the lxx.), 
and partic. eo-rws (in most cases : «tt^kws is also found), fem. eo-rwaa 
1 C. 7. 26, 2 P. 3. 5, neut. «rros Mt. 24. 15 (v.l. -ws), Ap. 14. 1 
(B -ws), but cctt?;kos (« -ws) 5. 6. But the indie, remains eo--n//<ayu€i' 
etc. (cp. i8(OKa/j.€v). On o-ttjkq) see § 17. From rkdv-qKa we have inf. 
Ttdvdvai A. 14. 19 DEHLP ; t€$m]kws always. 018a, -as, -e, -afnv etc. 
(Ionic and Hellenist.) ; only in A 26. 4 (speech of Paul before 
Agrippa) «rao-iv (literary language); urn H. 12. 17 (unless it be 
imperat.) ; plupf. fjSeiv, -eis etc.; moods as in Att.: ei'Sw, terre Ja. 1. 19, 
E. 2. 5 (v.l. «rre) ; infin. ciSevai, part. tiows. 

6. Remaining tenses of the ordinary verbs in -ju. — 'Io-Tdv« in 
transitive sense has fut. o-thjo-w, aor. eo-T^o-a, perf. co-toko, (differ- 
entiated from -rjKa; first found in Hyperides) A. 8. n. Intransitive 
are «rra/tai, fut. <TTt]o~ofiai and o-raB^o-ofiai, SLOT, «tt^v and io-rdOyv ; 
both forms in the simple vb. are identical in meaning, as in Ionic and 
Hellenist. 3 (in Att. icrrdörjv, o-rad^cr. have a passive sense). Com- 
pounds of io~Ta.fJLcu, e.g. dvd lo-Tafiai, dv-, d<f>-, 6V, ££av-, e£-, £<f>- etc. take 
-rjv, -qo-ofiat in aor. and fut. in intransitive senses ; on the other hand 
the following also take aor. in -O-qv in passive senses : Ka#io-Ta/zai 
(R. 5. 19), diroKad. (Mt. 12. 13, Mc. 3. 5 -Q-T7] C, Mc. 8. 25 -o~Tr} 
kBCLA, L. 6. 10 -o-TT) «*, H. 13. 19), tied. (L. 16. 4 ). 4 The perf. 
emfKa has present meaning ; but in Jo. 8. 44 ovk (nB*DLX al.) 
€ctt>;k€v (§ 4, 3) it has true perfect sense ' has stood,' a new formation 
related to eo-rtjv (1). — From <£»//u, except for -fit, -o-i, 4'<£?/ (which is 
at once impf, and aor., as in Att.), no forms are represented in N.T. 

1 This -y^ is found in other Hellenistic writings in all optatives in -ol-qv : 
Philodem. Rhet. ed. Sudhaus, ii. 52, 144, 169, 2S5, (viropiprj, woiuSt), 6/xo\oywr], 


2 Attic poets also have dvdera, Kardßa, but other forms with r\ ; lxx. only 
has -öTci side by side with -ar^dt. 

3 There is not sufficient ground for attributing a passive sense to the simple 
verb ffTadrjvai in passages like L. 21. 36 (D ibid. ffTrjfferai). 

4 But also without passive sense eireaTdOyv T) L. 4. 39, 10. 40, Clem. Cor. i. 
12. 4 ; dvT£<TTddr)i> Herrn. Maud. xii. 2. 3, irapecr. Sim. viii. 4. I. 

§ 23- 6-8.1 VERBS IN -ML 5 1 

— -T£0tip.i has, as generally in the Hellenist, language, perf. act. redeiKa 
(Jo. 11. 34 : Att. -f]Ka), perf. mid. reOetfiat (o-wt.) Jo. 9. 22 (pass, in 
ijv Te#ei/iivos Jo. 19. 41 kB for iTediq) l in the parallel passage L. 23. 
53 r)v Keifxevos according to the Att. usage, which is adhered to else- 
where in N.T. in the substitution of Kdcrdai for redetcrdai). 

7. "Itijxi. — Only found in composition with dv-, d<p-, (Trap-), ko.6-, 
crvv-, and in the case of dc/>-, o-uv-i'77/u (the only compounds in use in 
the popular language) with the alternative form in -m : in -tere, -leTat 
the two conjugations coincide. 'Atpirjfii (so Jo. 14. 27), -1770-1 
(Mt. 3. 15), -tevat (Mc. 2. 7 etc.); on the other hand -io/xev (so 
n c ABCDE) in L. 11. 4 (Mt. 6. 12 D al., but n*B d^Ka^v) ; 2nd 
sing. pres. dc6e?s (i.e. -teis, -ms, cp. § 6, 5, note 2), though in this case 
there appears in Att. also -tets (and n^eis) ; impf. 7'jc/>iev Mc. 1. 34, 
11. 16; in the passive there is fluctuation between -Uvrai, -tovrat, 
-ecovTcu (vide infra). Cp. in Hermas dc/>i7/crtv Mand. x. 3. 3, -tevTai 
Vis. ii. 2. 4, -lovcriv iii. 7. 1. In the case oi a-wirj/xt there is only one 
undisputed instance of the conjugation in -/« : A. 7. 25 crime vat : 
elsewhere Mt. 13. 19 orvvievros, DF -iovtos : L. 24. 45 awuvai, B* 
o-i'vetvai ; also crwiu, except in quotations, is never without var. lect.: 
Mt. 13. 13 crvvtovo-i (language influenced by O.T.: -iwcriv B** cp. D), 
2 C. 10. 12 (Tvviovcriv (-tdcrtv N a B, -tcracrtv N*), R. 3. 1 1 cruvttov O.T. 
quot. (Barn. 12. 10 o-wiwv, but 4. 6, 10. 12 -tevat: Herrn. Mand. 
iv. 2. 1, x. 1. 3 crvviiM, iv. 2. 2 o-vvUi, x. 1. 6 crvvtowiv, Sim. ix. 12. 1 
crwte; in the lxx. the forms from dc/uw and <rvvi<a are more estab- 
lished and fairly frequent, W.-Schm. § 14, 16). 'Avirjpt, dvtevTes 
E. 6. 9 ; Kadufievos A. 10. 11, 11. 5. — Tenses: N.T. has dcf>rJKav etc. 
like e0t]Kav (4 supra), the perf. -et«a never occurs, while a-w^Kare 
Mt. 13. 51, dcprjKap.ev Kat i]Ko\.ovOiJKaiJ.ev (BCD, al. -T^cra/Aev) Mc. 10. 28 
may indeed give the impression of being perfects, but are still to be 
taken as aorists (cp. Mt. 19. 27, L. 18. 28, and with o-wiJKare Aristoph. 
Ach. 101 gwiJKad' o Aeyei). The Dor.ic (and Ionic) perf. was eWa, 
pass, ewjaat, and the latter also appears in N.T.: the form dc/>ecuvTat 
is to be preferred in Jo. 20. 23 (wrong variants -Uvrai, -(e)tovTat : n* 
dfadrjo-erai), 1 Jo. 2. 12, L. 7. 47 f., 5. 20, 23 (also in Mt. 9. 2, 5 
against -iovrat D [5 D«*], -i'evrat »[5 « e ]B, Mc. 2. 5 [-tevrat B], 9 
[-te- NB]). On dvkdiiv, dcfiWrjv see § 15, 4. 

8. Elp.{. — The transition to the inflection of a deponent vb. (seen 
in ecro/xat : in mod. Gk. universally carried out) appears in i'j/xrjv 1st 
pers. (differentiated from r)v 3rd pers. Lob. Phryn. 152), from which 
7;/*€0<x is also formed Mt. 23. 30, A 27. 37, E. 2. 3 «B ; in G. 4. 3 
y/j.ev in the first instance (all MSS.) with i'jpeda (b*D*FG) following ; 
elsewhere y/xev. — The 2nd sing. impf, rjo-da only occurs in Mt. 26. 69, 
Mc. 14. 67 (Euseb. quotes the verse with ?]s), elsewhere it is ?}s (the ter- 
mination -o-da occurs nowhere else) as in Hellenistic Gk. (Phryn. 149). 
The imperat. has beside eo-rw, to-rwo-av the vulgar form t}tw Ja. 5. 1 2, 
1 C. 16. 22 (Herrn. Vis. iii. 3. 4, Clem. Cor. i. 48. 5), cp. W.-Schm. 
§ 14, 1. "Evt (i.e. strictly evecn-t, evt = ev: cp. 7rdpa = 7rdpeo-Ti) occurs 

1 Herrn. Sim. ix. 15. 4 has reQeifdvoi in pass, sense, similarly trepiTedeißiva, 
Clem. Cor. i. 20. 4. 

5 2 TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS. [§23.8-10. §24. 

in 1 C. 6. 5, G. 3. 28, Col. 3. 11, Ja. 1. 17, already in the sense of 
«mV ' there is,' which together with ewrt has been supplanted by this 
word, now written eivai, in modern Greek. W. Schmidt, Atticism, 
iii. 121. 

9. EIju. — In the popular language the verb occurs neither in its 
simple form nor in composition, epxopai taking its place, § 24 ; the 
compounds only are employed by L. and Hebr. (from the literary 
language) and not always correctly. Eio-iWiv H. 9. 6 for Att. 
tlo-epxpi'Tai (etVtacrti/ is flit, in Att.) : ei'criöi B Acts 9. 6 (-eA#e) : 
«tcrievGu 3. 3, 20. 7, 4 D, 27. 43 : partic. L. 8. 4 (-eXOovros D), 
Acts 13. 42, in aoristic sense 21. 17 in the ß text, so aoristic da-yei 
21. 18, 26, -eo-av 17. 10, 15. (Clem. Cor. i. 24. 3 antun 'departs' 
[Att. ' will depart '], cp. 54. 2 : Clem. Horn. ii. 1, iii. 63, (eV)eio-iüV 

10. 'Hp-cu, «eiuai. — Kd0i]fiai, Kadi] A. 23. 3 (cp. Svvy, supra 3 ; so 
already in Hyperides for -770-cu), imperat. ku6ov (already in late 
Att.) Ja. 2. 3, Mt. 22. 44 etc., and O.T. for -7/0-0. Imperf. 

always kKadrjjxyv § 15, 7 ; fut. Kadrjcrofxai Mt. 19. 28 (-t'o-ecrdt CD* 

al.), L. 22. 30 kAB 3 al. Cp. § 24. — Ke?/xou is regular : also used as 
perf. pass, of ti'0>?/« as in Att., supra 6. 


(The prefixing of * indicates that the paradigm embraces several stems.) 

'A-yaXXiäv active L. 1. 47 (Ap. 19. 7, prob, more correctly -ufxtda B ; 
IP. 1. 8 -are only BC*) ; elsewhere deponent with aor. mid. and pass., § 20. 
The verb is absent from profane Greek (which has dyd\\o/ instead). 

'AyyeMeiv, riyytXrjv constant, § 19, 3. 

"Aytiv, aor. ijyayov and rarely rj^a, § 19, 1 ; perf. act. unattested. 

CAyvivai) only in composition Karäyv. (as in Att.), pres. impf, unattested : 
aor. Kariä^av (Att. ) Jo. 19. 32 f. , but the use of the augm. is incorrectly extended 
(§ 15, 2) to the fut. Karedfei Mt. 12. 20, O.T., and aor. conj. pass. Kareaywaw 
Jo. 19. 31. 

*Alp«tv, aor. el\ov and -Xa, § 21, 1: fut. eXtD (late writers, lxx.) L. 12. 18, 
2 Th. 2. 8 (v.l. dvaXol, vide inf.), Ap. 22. 19 (but alp-qaoixai Ph. 1. 22). 

'Akov€iv, fut. Akovcto) and Attic, % 18, 3. 

'A\t|8€iv for dXeiv (Phryn. p. 151) : only pres. attested (aor. -^Xecra in lxx. : 
no other form of the aor. is likely to have existed). Cp. vrjdeiv. 

"AX\€cr0ai, with compounds dv-, e'£,- i(f>-, almost confined to Acts: (Jo. 4. 14, 
21. 7 D), 1st aor. r{Kdixt)v (lxx.) A. 14. 10 (Jo. 21. 7 D): 2nd aor. i<pa\bfj.evo i s 19. 
16 (also 3. 8 e£a\6/ti. is better than -XX- of the MSS.) : both forms occur in Att. 

'An.apTd.veiv, fut. ayuapxTja-w, § 18, 3 : 1st aor. ijßdpTrjaa along with 2nd 
aor. Tifj-aprov, § 19, 1. 

'An^idj^iv, -teteiv, -evvvvat : see § 17. 

' AvaXovv = dva\i<TKet.i> (both Att., -ovv also in lxx., W.-Schm. § 15): dvaXoi 
2 Th. 2. 8 «* Origen (v.l. dvaXwact, dve\e~i). Tenses regular : L. 9. 54, G. 5. 15. 

('Avt<Lv) : fut. diravT-qvu, ffvv-, § 18, 3. 

'A-ir€iXeio-8cH deponent A. 4. 17, 21 for Att. direiheiv (1 P. 2. 23); 
SiaireiXeiaOai. as depon. is also Att. 

'ApTrdj;«iv : fut. -dau, § 18, 3 : 2nd aor. pass, -yqv (and 1st aor. -aQ^vt as in 
Att.), § 19, 3. 

■ -sat**^---* ** ** *- ?". ■■ »* ■ » ■ - g»gwe»:»Ai :c - » ■*-.-->■»-" ; " 


Atf|«iv, avjjdvciv, both forms Att., but in transit, sense 'increase,' whereas 
'grow' is -oficu. N.T. has -dvu trans, only in 1 C. 3. 6 f., 2 C. 9. 10 (Herrn. 
Vis. iii. 4. I ai)£w, i. 1. 6 atffijo-as). Elsewhere -dyw (and atffw : only E. 2. 21, 
Col. 2. 19) is used = Att. A. 6. 7 al. : along with Mt. 13. 32 
(N b D -770-77), Mc. 4. 8 v.l., Epp. Paul, passim, 1 P. 2. 2. 

Baivciv : aor. Zß-qv, ävdßa, -ßare, § 23, 4. 

Bapeiv : ßeßapru^pos old (/3e/3. tjOcW Plat. Sympos. 203 b) Mt. 26. 43, 
L. 9. 32 (Mc. 14. 40 var. lect. ßeß., Karaßeß., Karaßapov/nevot, Karaßapvvö- 
(ia>ot. Bapvvo) is the ordinary Att. word, but in N.T. besides this passage it 
only occurs as a v.l. in L. 21. 34 DH, 2 C. 5. 4 D*FG). Elsewhere in the 
pass. : 2 C. 1. 8, 5. 4, 1 Tim. 5. 16, L. 21. 34. Also the compounds inrißapeiv, 
Karaß. in St. Paul (Karaß. Herrn. Sim. ix. 28. 6, ßapovvra Clem. Horn. xi. 16). 
W. Schmidt, Atticism, iii. 187. 

Bao-Kcuvuv : aor. -ava.,% 16, 3. 

[Biovv] : /3td>crcu 1 P. 4. 2, for Att. -cat (the only form in which this verb 
occurs: elsewhere frjv, cp. inf.). 

BXcurrdveiv : pres. conj. -vy Mc. 4. 27 wAC 2 al., but BC*DLA /3Xaor£ from 
ßXaaräv, as Herrn. Sim. iv. 1 ßXaarCivra (W.-Schm. § 15) : a new 1st aor. -770-0 
occurs, § 19, 1. 

B\€7T€iv, ' to look,' aor. Zß\e\(/a (Acts 3. 4) as in Att.: ■KtpitßXe^dix-qv Mc. 3. 5, 
etc. With the meaning 'to see' (for bpdv, vide inf.) only in pres. and impf., 
except Acts 28. 26 ß\4\pere O.T. quot., see § 18, 3. (I\.poß\i\paa6on = irpo'ideadcu 
H. 11. 40, see §55, 1.) 

Bov\eo-eai, § 15, 3: § 21, 7. 

ra|xeiv: also used of the wife (for Att. -ei<rdai) Mc. 10. 12 (-77077 v.l.), 1 Tim. 
5. 11, 14 etc.; elsewhere for the wife N.T. uses -Ifcadai. (but aor. --qd-qv 
1 C. 7. 39 = eyr)/xdfj.7]i> Att.), for which ya/j.i<TKovrai is read Mc. 12. 25 E al., 
L. 20. 34 NBL (iKyapUa-K. E al. , eKyafxif. A al., yap-ovvrai D), 35 B (yaplf. Hl> al., 
tKya./j.i$.>A al.). The act. yap.lteu> (eKy.) 'to give to wife' : Mt. 24. 38 (ya/x. ND, 
rell. eKy.), 1 C. 7. 38. — Aor. act. iydfi-qaa Mt. 5. 32 al. , Herrn. Mand. iv. 4 (so 
-■qd-qv, vide supra), for which the Att. form occurs as a v.l., Mt. 22. 35 
NBL, L. 14. 20 (?\aßov D), 1 C. 7. 28 701,11770-775 ...ywv P*FG ya/j-y). 

Tfkav, tub. -daw, § 18, 3. 

riv€o-0ai (never yiyv. as in Att.), aor. eyevöß-qi> and -vqd-qv, § 20. 

rtvw<TK€iv (never ylyv. as in Att.), 2nd aor. conj. 7m and yy, § 23, 4. 

rpT]"yop«iv, § 17 ; cp. iyeipeiv. 

Aeto-eai, iStero, § 22, 2. 

Aia.KOV€iv, onjKovovv, § 15, 6. 

AiSovai, see § 23, 3 and 4. 

Ai\|/dv, -as, § 22, 1 ; Sixp-qaw, § 16, 1. 

AiwKtiv, fut. -£w, § 18, 3. 

AvvacrOai pres., § 23, 2 ; augm. 77- or i-, § 15, 3 ; fut. dwricrofxai, § 20, 2 ; aor. 
■qhwqd-qv (and iibwdad-qv Mt. 17. 1 6 B, Mc. 7. 24 «B, Epic and Ionic). 

Aveiv intrans. 'to set' E. 4. 26 (Homeric: Att. Bvopai), for which dvvw 
(Xenoph. and others) occurs in L. 4. 40 (dvaavros D) : aor. ?8vv, edvaa, § 19, 1 
(idv-qcrav, § 19, 2).; ivdvvovres 'creeping in' 2 Tim. 3. 6 (cp. Barn. 4. 10). 
'Evdfeiv trans, 'to put on' pres. only in Mc. 15. 17 AN, correct reading 
-5i8v<ri<ei.v, see § 17 : so mid. tvfaSvoKeodai, see ibid.: but tenses as in Att. -tdvaa, 
-dfji-qv etc. : similarly e/c50crai (pres. and impf, unattested). 

'E-y€ip €lv 'raise up,' 'awake': intrans. tyeipe (not -at aor. mid.), sc. aeavrov 
Mc. 5. 41 etc. (Eurip. Iph. Aul. 624) ; intrans. -o/xat 'rise' (Sieyeipofxai 'awake' 
intrans.), aor. -qyipO-qv, § 20 ; perf. iy-qyeprai 'has been raised' 1 C. 15. 4 (late 
writers ; Att. iyprjyopa ' I am awake ' has become ypriyopQ, § 17). 

ETA-o!8a, § 23, 5 : fut. eldyaw H. 8. 11 O.T. quot. (Ionic and late = Att. 

Elxeiv, £l'pr]Ka etc. see X^yeiv. 


EXtdv - «Acciv, § 22, 2. 

"EXk«iv, aor. d\Kvcra as in Att., fut. eXicuau Jo. 12. 32 (Att. £\£w). 

'EXkovv : ei\KU)/di>os, § 15, 6. 

'Ep-ydj^o-Oai : vpya-fop-v > ~)pyaadfiifv t eipya.o~fiai, § 15, 5 and 6. 

*"Epx,€<r8ai. In Att. for 'to come' tyxofj-at is used only in the indie., conj. 
tui, inf. Uvat. etc., impf. 77a, ^ e '" : ' will come ' = etßi. When d/j.L fell out of use 
(§ 23, 9), {pxofJLai was employed throughout: ZpxwfJ-ai, -)px6fj.--v etc., fut. 
eXewofxai (Epic and Ionic : Phryn. 37). Aor. t)\6ov and perf. (\-j\vda. as in Att. 

*'Eo-0£€iv and 'to-Quv (-6eiv as early as Horn., Doric and late writers). The 
former predominates (as also in lxx. ), so without var. lect. Mt. 9. 11, 
11. 18 f., 12. 1 etc., R. 14. 2 f., 6, 20 etc. ; but ^d-qre L. 22. 30 BD*T, tad-ov 
Mc. 1. 6 NBL*A, 12. 40 B, L. 7. 33 BD, 34 D, 10. 7 BD (elsewhere even Mc. 
and L. have ladieiv in all the mss. ). Fut. from aor. Zcpayov, § 18, 2: 
2nd sing, -etrai, § 21, 7. Pf. ßißpuKa. (from the obsolete ß-ßpdxxK-o) Jo. 6. 13, 
aor. pass. ßpwOrj L. 22. 10 D. (The pres. in the popular language was rpci-yw, so 
always in S. John, elsewhere only Mt. 24. 38 ; see also Herrn. Sim. v. 3. 7, 
Barn. 7. 8, 10. 2, 3.) 

"E)(€iv, fut. only ?(■«, § 14, 1 ; similarly dvix^o-Oai has only dvQofxai : impf, 
and aor. dvecx-, dvecrx-> § 15, 7. 

Zfjv, fut. fi7<rw and -oficu, § 18, 3 : aor. Zfatra A. 26. 5, Herrn. Sim. viii. 9. I, 
for which in Att. ißiuv was introduced as a supplementary form (cp. sup. 
ßtovv) : perf. unattested. (Impf. 1st sing. 2 fry, -wv, § 22, 1.) 

Zwvvvvai, perf. pass, and mid. -repu'^wo-fxivos (Att. without a) L. 12. 35 al. 

Hk€iv : 3rd. plur. 77/cacru' Mc. 8. 3 fc*ADN (al. tfKov<Tiv, B elaiv), cp. Clem. 
Cor. i. 12. 2. The transition of this verb of perfect meaning to the inflection 
of the perfect tense is found also in lxx. and other late writings, W.-Schm. 
§ 13, 2: Kühner I. ii. 3 438 : W. Schmidt, Jos. elocut. 470. 

'Ho-o-oOo-Oat, 2 C. 12. 13 N*BD* r\GouQt)Te (Ionic eao-ovcrdai), with v.l. T-rT-jOr-Te 
(the Attic form [literary lang.] as in 2 P. 2. 19 f. rfrri)rai, ^rrwvrai, and' even 
7)TTi)p.a in S. Paul), FG rjXaTTÜdrjTe, cp. Jo. 3. 30 (literary lang.). 

(0a\X.€iv), aor. dvedaXov, § 19, 1 (no other form attested) ; dvaGdWu (intrans. ) 
Clem. Cor. i. 36. 2. 

0aiJ[id£€i.v (-eadai depon. ), aor. e6a.ufia.o~a and •a.cjQ'-v, fut. {dav/, -acrdri- 
o-ofiai, § 18, 3 : § 20, 1. 

©tdo-Sai, see deu-petv. 

Qi\-\.v not (as in Att.) e0A«e, the ordinary word of the popular language 
for 'will' (so mod. Gk.): beside it is found ßovXeada- (literary lang.) without 
distinction of meaning, rare in the Gospels, and not often in the Epistles, 
frequent only in the Acts. — Augm. always -)-, § 15, 3 (perfect unattested). 

*0ewp€iv, generally defective, only pres. and impf, being used, but fut. 
Jo. 7. 3. aor. Mt. 28. 1, L. 8. 35 D, 23. 48 «BCD al., Jo. 8. 51 (-aet «), 
Ap. 11. 12; elsewhere the tenses of dedadai (pres. impf, wanting) are used: 
aor. •ao-dfX7]v, perf. rediafxai, aor. pass. eOeddrfy. 

'«o-9cu, mid. (Att.) H. 2. 17; l\dcr0r)Ti 'be merciful' L. IS. 13, cp. 
(£i\a<rdei> ' expiated ' Plat. Legg. 862 C. 

Io-rdvtiv (lo-rdv), 'io-raadai, § 23, 2, 4, 5, 6. 

Ka8apC£«v ' to cleanse ' not Kadalpeiv (Jo. 15. 2 D correctly Kadapiei, cp. 
H. 10. 2 ; KeKaOap/xtviüv is found in Herrn, Sim. ix. 18. 3). In compounds the 
simpler form is more attested : dianadäpai L. 3. 17 N*B (al. diaKadapiel), tuna- 
ddpare 1 C. 5. 7, (KKaddpri 2 Tim. 2. 21. 

Ka0^€<r0cu, Ka0££av, Ka0fj<r0ai. In Attic iKade^6fxr)v aor. = 'I seated myself,' 
icadifa 'I seat' trans, and also intrans. 'I seat myself,' which is elsewhere ex- 
pressed by -t^o/xai. : KdOt-fiai ' I sit ' (in perfect sense). In the N.T. 'I set' or 
'seat' is KaOlfa, aor. -ura. (as in Att.) : 'I seated myself = tKddio-a (not mid.), 
so that the sense of Jo. 19. 13 is extremely doubtful : there is also a perf. 
K€KddiKev (intrans.) H. 12. 2 (the present only appears in trans, sense : for fut. 
vide inf.) ; aor. eKadiad-qv from Kadi^ofiai (Phryn. 269) only in L. 10. 39 NABC* 


al., -ia-aaa C 3 DP etc.; 'sit' is KaOrj/xai (in the majority of cases) and Kadefo/xai 
(rare): iKaOtfero impf, 'sat' ('had seated himself) Jo. 4. 6, 11. 20, for which 
€Kädt)To occurs elsewhere, as in Mt. 13. 1 ; KadefSfievos = Kadrj/j.. A. 6. 15 
(D -ri/xevoi) etc.; fat. Mt. 19. 28(-iW0e CD* al.), L. 22. 30 «AB 3 al. 
(-iaeade EF, but B* Kdd-qcrde conj., D Kadi^-qade) for Attic Kadedovpai. The 
2nd pers. of näd-q^u is teddy, § 23, 9 : imperat. Kddov ibid. ( ' sit ' = ' seat thyself ' 
Ja. 2. 3). 

Kakiv : aor. and fut. pass. § 19, 3. 

KaXeiv : fut. KaX^cru, § 18, 1. 

(Kepavvvvcu), perf. pass. Keictpao-fiai (late; Att. K^Kpäfiai) Ap. 14. 10. 

KepSaivav (pres. and impf, unattested), aor. eKtpörjea as if from /cepSew (Ionic 
and late writers) Mt. 16. 26 and passim ; but Kepddvu (§ 16, 3) 1 C. 9. 21 N*ABC 
al. (N C DE al. KepSrjaw, as also four times in the same chap. ver. 19, 20, 22) ; 
a corresponding fut. pass. Kepdridrjo-ovrai occurs 1 P. 3. I. There is fluctuation 
also in Josephus between the Attic and the vulgar forms, W. Schmidt, de Jos. 
elocut. 451, 459. 

KXaUiv, fut. kXcuW, § 18, 3. 

KXeCeiv, perf. pass. KeKXeta/j-ai for -ei/iai, § 16, 1. 

KXivsiv, aor. and fut. pass. euXiO-qv, KXidrjaofiai, § 19, 3. 

Kpd^eiv, the pres. rare in Attic (which uses niKpaya instead) is often in N.T., 
on the other hand KeKpäya is only used in Jo. 1. 15 : fut. npd^w (Ke/cpd£o/xcu), § 18, 
3 : aor. eKeKpa^a (lxx., from tc^Kpaya) only A. 24. 21 «ABC. 

Kpivciv : dwoKpivo/xai, vwokpLvo/jlou, aor. and fut. § 20, 1. 

Kpvßav, aor. pass, hpiiß-qv, § 19, 3. 

(Kt«iv€iv) : only in compound dwoKreivu) and -iv(v)u, § 17 ; aor. pass, dire- 
KTdvdt}v (late) Mc. 9. 31 al. = Att. dirtdavov. 

(Kveiv) dwoKve? Ja. 1. 15, -v-qcrev 1. 18 (from kvw we have eKvo/xeu in LXX., 
W.-Schm. § 15). 

KvXwiv (already in Att.; older form -ivdw) Mc. 9. 20, fut. -tcru Mc. 16. 3, 
aor. act. eKiiXicra, perf. pass. /ce/ci>Xiö>icu as in Att. 

Adimv 'to burst': iXdKricrev A. 1. 18 (cp. Acts of Thomas, § 33) as in 
Aristoph. Nub. 410 diaXäKrjcraaa : elsewhere unknown : to be distinguished 
from Xd<r/cw 'sound' (aor. $\S,kov). 

Aap.ßdv€iv, fut. \rnj.ipop.aL, aor. pass. eXr)[x<f>9riv (\rj/A\{/is Ph. 4. 15, dvdXr)p.\pis 
L. 9. 51 : TTpoawrroXi'jiJ.TrTtjs) as in other Hellenistic writings, § 6, 8. (The later 
mss. restore the Attic form by omitting the p..) 

(A^yeiv 'to collect'): only in crvXXeyw, -£a, eKXeXey/ievos (Att. usually 
e&iXeyp..) L. 9. 35. 

*A€-yeiv 'to say': Att. X^£w, eXet-a etc.; but in N.T. defective (the be- 
ginning of this defective state reaches back into Attic times, Miller, Amer. 
Journ. of Philol. xvi. 162) with only pres. and impf. ; the remaining tenses 
being aor. elTrov, -a (§ 21, 1), fut. epui, perf. dpr/ica, aor. pass, ipptdrjv, pTjdrjvai, 
§ 16, 1, perf. etprffxai. {Still Xeyeiv and dirdv were felt to be separate verbs, 
otherwise we should not find these combinations : tovto eliruv Xeyet Jo. 21. 19, 
d-rrev Xeyuv L. 12. 25, 20. 2.) But, dieX^x^V" as in Att. (Mc. 9. 34), 
see § 20, 1. 

Aetimv : (class. ) with alternative form Xifiirdvetv, dieXlinravev Acts 8. 24 D, 
17. 13 D, vTroXißTidveLv 1 P. 2. 21, eyKaTaXißTravöfxevoi FG Euseb. Chrys. in 
2 C. 4. 9 (also lxx.); 1st aor. ZXenpa occurs occasionally instead of ZXittov, 
§ 19, 1. 

Aovav, Xe\, % 16, 1. 

(MVXeiv) {'■mp.eXov/j.a.i (lxx.) or -ofiai (both Attic forms) not represented: 
fut. -r)o-o/, § 20, 2 : ^era/xeXo/ucu (the only Att. form) 2 C. 7. 8, aor. -r)dr\v (not 
attested in Att.) Mt. 21. 29 etc., fut. --qQ-qo-op-ai. H. 7. 21 O.T. quot. 

M«XX«iv : ZfieXXov and rfpeXXov, § 15, 3. 

Miaivciv : fiefMiaiifiai, § 16, 3. 


Mvt]<rr€V€iv : perf. pass. /xep.i>r) v.l., § 15, 6. 

NtjOjiv 'to spin' for vr)v (Ionic and late), the constant N.T. form, cp. 

Nhrmv for vlfriv, § 17. 

(Hvpeiv), pres. unattested : aor. mid. ^vpaadai as if from £vpeiv (not ^vpaadai 
pres. ) 1 C. 11. 6 and Svprjaaadai A. 21. 24 (both forms unattested in Att. ), but 
in Acts D has ^vpuvrai, SB*D 2 EP ^vprjaofrai : perf. i£vpr)fxai (Att.) 1 C. 11. 5. 

(Otyav) dvolyeiv (never -yvvvat) : the augment is always in the a in the comp. 
Siapoiyttv, 5i-qvolxSr)ffav L. 24. 31, önjvoiyeu 32 etc.; also in the simple vb. con- 
stantly in the 2nd aor. pass, rjvoiyrjv A. 12. 10 (-x^V E al. ), which is a new 
formation; in the other forms (the impf, is only attested for 5iav.) the old 
syllabic augm. is still strongly represented : 1st aor. act. dvcu^a. Jo. 9. 14 
(riviifi^ev LX, Tjvoi^ev D), 17 ^voi|€v NAD al., BX fyi^!-., KL di^o>£. , similarly 
ver. 32 : in verses 21, 26, 30 B also has r)voi^ev, and this form deserves prefer- 
ence (cp. A. 5. 19, 9. 40, 12. 14, 14. 27, Ap. 6. 1, 3 etc.); — perf. (intrans. as 
in late writers) dviipya Jo. 1. 52 (-fiveuyora N), 1 C. 16. 9, 2 C. 6. II, elsewhere 
dviuiy/mi as in Att. R. 3. 13 O.T. quot., 2 C. 2. 12 (fyeuiyp.. DEP), A. 10. II 
(r)ve. E), 16. 27 : Ap. 4. 1 B, but «AP tye., similarly 10. I, 8, 19. II (3. 8 &e. 
ABC) ; — 1st aor. pass, dvecpx^V 1 ' Mt. 3. 16 (fye. B), 9. 30 (i)ve. BD), 27. 52, 
L. 1. 64 etc.: -qvetpxQ- J°- 9. 10 with preponderant evidence (dv. AK al. ) : Acts 
16. 26 fyolxO- NAE, i)»ey'x0. BCD, dve. HLP : there is diversity of reading also 
in Ap. 20. 12. Infin. dv€tpx^V vai L. 3. 21 (-vol- only D), cp. supra dyvvvai, 
§ 15, 2. On 1st and 2nd aor. (T}volyqv) and fut. -yrjaofiai (-x^W-) see § 19, 3. 

OlKTipeiv (so to be spelt for -elpeiv), fut. olKTip-qo-u R. 9. 15 O.T. quot. (late). 

fOXXvvai) diroW., § 23, 1 : fut. awoKiau) as also in Herrn. Sim. via. 7. 5 
( = Att. cbroXw 1 C. 1. 19 O.T. quot., so nearly always in lxx.): but fut. pass. 
äiroXouficu L. 13. 3 etc. 

*'Opav is still more defective than in Attic, since even the pres. and impf, 
are rare (being confined to the literary language) : the popular language 
replaced them by means of ßXeireiv and Oeupelv. (Exceptions : opa, bpare, cave, 
-ete Mt. 8. 4 etc. [but ßXeweTe is also used in this sense A. 13. 40 etc.] : also 
L. 16. 23, 23. 49, A. 8. 23 ?, H. 11. 27, 1 P. 1. 8, Ja. 2. 24 [Ap. 18. 18, Jo. 6. 2, 
Mc. 8. 24] : in composition H. 12. 2, A. 2. 25 O.T., R. 1. 20 ; pres. and impf, 
are rare also in Hennas : Vis. iii. 2. 4, 8. 9, Mand. vi. 2. 4 : Barn, öpäre 15. 8). 
The perf. is still always iopaKa (ewp. ), § 15, 6: aor. elSov [-a, § 21, 1): fut. 
6\ : aor. pass, uxpd-qv apparui, fut. 6<p$ricrofiai. (perf. wtttixi Herrn. Vis. 
iii. 1. 2 H). In addition a new present form is created öirrdvonai A. 1. 3 
(lxx. ; Papyr. Louvre notices et extr. de mss. xviii. 2, no. 49 according to the 

riaCttiv, tto^w etc., § 16, 2 ; § 18, 3. 

Ilavciv, dv air aria ofxai, § 20, 1. 

HtiQtiv, aor. pass. iireiaO^v, fut. treiadrjo-ofiai L. 16. 31 (m(TTevo~ovo~iv D). 

ncivciv, -£s etc., § 22, 1 : aor. eireivaca, § 16, 1. 

ücipd^eiv 'to tempt' or 'try any one' (Horn., and late writers) always for 
Att. irapdv ; also for ' to attempt anything ' = Att. ireipä<rdai A. 24. 6 al. 
{weipavdai A. 26. 21 speech of Paul before Agrippa). 

Ilid^eiv, UUltw. The latter = • to press ' as in Att. L. 6. 38 ; the former is 
confined to the common language = ' to lay hands on ' (mod. Gk. mdvw), aor. 
iwiaaa, iTridadrjv (John, Acts, once even in St. Paul, Apoc. ). 

uip-irXav for -dvai, § 23, 2. 

IHvav, fut., irieaat, § 21, 7 ; aor. Zttiov, imper. wie L. 12. 19 (Att. also 
■n-Wt), infin. contracted to irelv, ttiv (§ 6, 5) Mt. 27. 34 N*D, Mc. 10. 38 D, 
15. 23 D, Jo. 4. 7 «*B*C*DL, cp. ibid. 9, 10 etc. (Anthol. Pal. xi. 140 in 
verse: papyri in W. Schmidt, Gtg. Gel. Anz. 1895, 40.) 

*IIrTrpcicrK€i.v, in Hellenistic Gk. conjugated in full with the exception of fut. 
and aor. act. (so impf. act. iirlTrpao-Kov A. 2. 45). In Attic it is only in the 
pass, that the conjugation is fairly complete : the act. has perf. iriwpaKa 
(Mt. 13. 46: D eiruXriaev), but in the other tenses iruXfiv and diroSiooadai 


are used. The N.T. employs the aorist of the latter of these two verbs 
(A. 5. 8, 7. 9, H. 12. 16), from the former we have irwXw, iirü\ovv, iiriliK-qaa, 
TrwXovfiai pass, (all used in Att. as well) : in addition to these R. 7. 14, 
(irpä.6r)v Mt. 18. 25 etc. 

nfirrav, Zireaov, and more frequently iweaa, § 21, 1. 

rioOeiv, aor. iiröÖTjaa, § 16, 1. 

'PcHveiv, pavTi£€iv. For reduplication, § 15, 6. 

'Peiv, fut. peucru), § 18, 3 (Attic has pres. fut. pewro/icu, aoristic fut. pvrjaoixai). 

'Piryvvivai in the pass. Mt. 9. 17, L. 5. 6 A al. : for which prjaaeiv (-ttciv, late 
writers) appears in Mt. 9. 17 D, L. 5. 6 NBL, Mc. 2. 22 Ar al. , v.l. pfäei ; aor. 
ipprj^a ; the old epic word p-qaanv - TinrTciv, cp. the Attic (and LXX. ) pdrreiv 
'to dash down' Demosth. 54. 8 is found with the latter meaning in Mc. 9. 18 
(päaaei D), L. 9. 42, lxx. Sap. 4. 19 : Hennas, Mand. xi. 3 pa£cu as). To 
this word also belongs irpoaeprj^ev - wpoaißaKe L. 6. 48. 

'Piirmv and plirmv, Att., in the N.T. the present stem only occurs in 
A. 22. 23, -ovvrwu (-6vtwv DEHL) cp. ip(p)iirTovv Herrn. Vis. iii. 5. 5 : perf. 
pipifijjiai., § 15, 6. 

'Pw€<r9(H 'to save' (Epic, Ionic, and late writers) with aor. mid. ep(p)vadfxy]y 
and aor. pass. ip(p)vad7jv (late) L. 1. 74 etc. 

2a\iri£€iv, (Takiriab) etc., § 16, 2. 

ZT)|icuveiv, eari/xäva, § 16, 3. 

*2kott£iv, orKetycurOai in Attic form one verb, since only pres. and impf, of 
GKoireiv are found, and from <jk€\j/. the forms -irrofiai, iaKewTofiriv are absent. In 
N.T. <TKoire?v is used as in Att., iiriGKeTrreaOai however is also found in the pres. 
= 'to visit' (H. 2. 6, Ja. 1. 27); eirurKoweiv = ' to take care' H. 12. 15 (eVi- 
aKeirreadaL ' to inspect ' Clem. Cor. i. 25. 5 ; ffwecrKeirTovro Ev. Petr. 43). 

SirovSdJeiv, fut. -<ru, § 18, 3. 

Srnpiteiv, tenses, § 16, 2. 

2Tpwvvveiv (not aropevv., which appears first in late scholiasts), § 23, 1. 

Zu^civ (t adscript, § 3, 3) : like e<rtb0ip> (e<jaüdr)v, <ra6co) the perf. aiauTai is 
still found Acts 4. 9 fc*A (v.l. -<ttcu), but (reeuo-fievoi E. 2. 5 all mss. , and in v. 8 
only P has the Att. form -uptivoi. 

Td«r(T€iv, erdy-qv, together with Zraxöriv, § 19, 3„ 

T«\€iv, fut. reXefo-w, § 18, 1. 

TiKT£iv, eY<(x<V, § 19, 3. 

TvYx&veiv : the Hellenistic perf. is rerevxa. for Att. TemjxvKa, Phryn. 395 : 
so H. 8. 6 rirevxev N C BD C E (v.l. Tervxyxev P, reVu^e male «*AD*KL, a form 
which is also occasionally found in the older editions of late writers : Lob. on 
Phryn. loc. cit.). 

*Tvirmv is defective and completed by means of other verbs as in Attic : 
tvttt€ii>, Htvtttov, 7raT<x£to, eVdra^a (pres. impf. etc. from this stem not found), 
Zwauja (no pres. and impf, found), pass, tv-xto/ao-i, aor. iirkriyr)v (the only form 
of this verb represented) Ap. 8. 12. 

*'Yird'Y£iv ' to go,' ' depart,' a word of the common language (never in Acts, 
Paul, or Hebrews ; mod. Gk. irdyu, ir-qyaivu), which makes only a present 
tense (most frequently the pres. imperat. ); supplemented by Tropevoßai (which, 
however, is not defective itself). 

«fcuvav, tyäva, § 16, 3 : cpavriaop-ai ((, § 20, 2. 

(«^cuia-Keiv LXX.), 4>cüctk€iv {iTTKpibtjKovaa Mt. 28. I, iirtyoxTKev L. 23. 54)) an 
Ionic and Hellenistic verb, only found in composition with Sia-, eVt-, utto-, and 
elsewhere only in pres. and impf. (cp. <pdos, <pws) : N.T. has fut. ewupavcei. 
E. 5. 14 a quotation {<iU<pav<re LXX. Gen. 44. 3 ; inr6<pa.vcns Herodot.). 

*$£ptiv, ijveyKa., -eiv etc. § 21, 1. 

<i>0dv€iv, aor. tydäaa (so and 'itpO-qv Attic), perf. 2<pda.Ka (unattested in Att. ) 
1 Th. 2. 16 BD*. Meaning 'to arrive at,' 'come upon' as in mod. Gk. ; 'to 
anticipate ' only in 1 Th. 4. 15 (for which irpcxpd. is used Mt. 17. 25). 

58 ADVERBS. [§ 24, § 25. 1-2. 

<t>oßeio-9ai, <f>oßr}9ri(TOfxat, § 20, 2. 

4>optiv, (poptaw etc. § 16, 1. 

4>v«iv, in act. only H. 12. 15 (O.T. quot.) intransitive (frequently in late 
writers) ; elsewhere only aor. {(pvrjv, § 19, 2. 

Xcupav, xapfytafuu., § 18, 3. 

Xv(v)v£tv for x e ' v ? § 17: fut. x € ^>> § IS, 2: aor. ?x €a as i Q Att. : pass. 
Kix v f JLai t ex^V also Att. 

^uXtiv, pres. L. 21. 26 ötto-: fut. perf. \pvyr)<ro(j.a.i, § 18, 3. 

'fiOeiv, augment, § 15, 2. 

'flv€io-0cu, augment, § 15, 2: aor. wvrjaä/jLrjv A. 7. 16 (Att. tirpti^v, which is 
still used in the lxx.). 

§ 25. ADVERBS. 

1. Adverbs of manner formed from adjectives with termination 
-ws occasionally have a comparative with a corresponding ending in 
-t€/3cos : 7re/Dto-o-oTepws 2 C. 1. 12, and constantly in St. Paul, H. 2. i, 
13. 19 (6. 17 -nrepou, but B -o-repcos, 7. 1 5 -OTepov), Mc. 15. 14 ENP al. 
(7repicrcrws «AB al.), 7. 36 D (-oTepov nAB al.), cp. for their meaning 
and usage § 11, 4; cnrovSaioTepm Ph. 2. 28 (D*FG -oYepov) ; cp. 
eo"x«T(iJs ex €iv (P°^y D -) ^ c - ö- 2 3- Elsewhere such comparative 
adverbs take -repov, which is also the predominant termination in 
Attic, and from -(i)(av the constant adverbial form is -(i)ov (ßeXnov 
etc., Attic has also the adverbial ending -oVws). ' Well' is KaAws, no 
longer ev (except in E. 6. 3 O.T. quot., A. 15. 29 literary language : eu 
TTouiv 'to benefit' anyone, only in Mc. 14. 7) ; 'better' is Kpzio-crov 
(1 C. 7. 38). Ai7rAoTe/Dov 'in double measure' Mt. 23. 15 (late).— On 
dvwTepov, KarojTepo), Troppiorepov (-repio) see § 11, 5. We have an 
instance of a numeral adverb TrpwTws in A. 11. 26 »BD 2 (irpdrov 
A al., D* reads differently), i.e. 'for the first time,' cp. Clem. Horn, 
ix. 4 tuv 7rpiüTO)s dvayi<d(Tai'Ta, xvi. 20 7T/dwtos e<£öey£a>, ä 7rpwTws ?y/<oi'- 
o-a/xei', always used of the first appearance of something. Similarly 
in Polyb. vi. 5. 10, Diod. Sic. iv. 24 totc irpwi-ws etc., Phryn. Lob. 
311 f. — An instance of an adverb formed from a participle (according 
to classical precedent) is ^eiSo/xei/ws 2 C. 9. 6 (Plutarch). 

2. In adverbs of place the distinction between 'where?' and 'whither?' 
is not always preserved even in classical Gk. (eV#a, IvravOa, h'ddSe, 
avo), KaTü>, 660-Ü), e£w) j a in the N.T. there is no longer any distinction 
whatever, in the same way that lv and ei's begin to be confused (§ 39, 
3). rioO is ' where 1 ' and ' whither ? ' (71-01 has disappeared) ; to it 
corresponds ov, Swov (ttov indef. is only in H. 2. 6, 4. 4, and in the 
sense 'about' in R. 4. 19; Sorrow H. 2. 16). 'Here' ('hither') is 
expressed by h>6dSe in L. (esp. in Acts) and Jo. 4. 15 f. (nowhere by 
evT<xv9a) y but usu. by SSe (in Acts only 9. 14, 21), which no longer 
has its original meaning ' thus ' (from <5s - 8e) : Att. also occasionally 

1 But Attic writers still have beside dcu, <f£o> the forms ZvSov, ivr6s, (kt6s to 
express the answer to the question 'where?'; accordingly Phrynichus 127 con- 
demns the use of ei'<rw in answer to this question, in spite of the instances that 
occur in poetry and prose. N.T. never has {vbov, and only rarely ivrbs, {ktös 
(the latter most often in St. Paul), which are still correctly used to answer 
the question ' where ? '. 

MBBeCW^gB— j—MBJH , i . •>^-m+-L,u.:-J.- ' «w- u w« hul i ■ ■ «. m.** i wm i unij i wiaH 

§25.2-5.] ADVERBS. 59 

uses wSe = ' hither.' 1 ' There' (' thither') is e/cet, in scholarly language 
€K€to-e A. 21. 3, 22. 5 = 'there' (D e'/cet). 2 Cp. opoo-e for öpvA. 20. 18 D 
joined with ovruv; 7ravTa^ou 'to every quarter' Mc. 1. 28, aAAa^ou 
' to another place ' ibid. 38, Lob. Phryn. 43 f. — The local adverbs in 
-y are no longer represented except iravras Travraxfj (-ou HLP) ' every- 
where' A. 21. 28; iravTiß re kou TvavTa\ov 24. 3 appears to mean 'in 
every way and everywhere.' 

3. Adverbs answering the question ' whence V with termination 
-6ev : Trodev (iroOkv nowhere), odev (o-n-odtv nowhere), evdev (opposed to 
£K€t, unclass.) Mt. 17. 20 (kvrevdev C), L. 16. 26 ( = Attic kvrevdev, 
IvOevSe), elsewhere Ivrevdev, which is also used for Attic kvOev in the 
phrase Jo. 19. 18 kvrevOev Kai €VTev6ev = Attic e'vöev Kai 'ivBzv (Ap. 
22. 2 ivr. Kai e/ceiöev AB, cvt. Kai kvr. some minuscules, evdev Kai N*, 
evdev add. N c ). 'Thence ' is €Kei#ev; other forms are TT-av-rofley (7ravTa- 
XoÖev Mc. 1. 45 EGU al. as in Attic prose), dXXaxodev. — The termina- 
tion -6ev has become stereotyped and meaningless in most cases in 
the words ecrwöev, egwöev 'within,' 'without,' as is often the case even 
in Attic Gk. (they have the meaning 'from within,' 'from without' in 
Mc. 7. 18, 2 1, 23, L. 1 1. 7 ; these forms are never used in answer to the 
question 'whither?'): also in Kvi<\66ev Ap. 4. 8 (Att.) : and the ter- 
mination is entirely without force in efnrpocrOev, owio-dev, as it is from 
the earliest times. On the other hand avwOev = 'from above' (koltwOcv 
does not appear) ; aw' dvwdev ews kcitw in Mt. 27. 51 (dir' om. nL), Mc. 
15. 38 is like aVu p.a.Kp6dev beside fiaKpodev Mt. 26. 58 (dirö om. NCF 
al.), Mc. 15. 40, 5. 6 (aVo om. AKL al.) etc. (also used in conjunction 
with i'cTTacröai, so that oVo and -Oev both lose their force), Ik iraiSio#ei/ 
Mc. 9. 21 (without (K AX al., D €K iraiSos), cp. (air', e£) ovpavodev 
Homer, Acts 14. 17 (without prep.) ; later writers are fond of reviv- 
ing this kind of expression Lob. Phryn. 46. MaKpoöev first occurs 
in Hellenistic Gk. ( = Attic iröppwOev which occurs in L. 17. 12 with 
«m/crav, H. 11. 13), also TraiS(i)68ev is first found in late writers (Lob. 
Phryn. 93) ; on the other hand the classical kyyvOev is absent from 

4. Adverbs of time. — IlöVe, -n-ork, ore (Ö7tot€ only L. 6. 3 AEHK al., 
ore nBCD al.), rore ; besides these (aAAoTe is wanting) 7rdvTore fre- 
quently in St. Paul for dei 3 (mod. Gk. and late writers, cp. Phryn. 
103), and occasionally in Mt. Mc. L. (never in Acts), H. 7. 25 (never 
in Epp. Cath.) ; dei only occurs in [Mc. 15. 8 ACD al., om. NBA] 
A. 7. 51, 2 C. 4. ii, 6. 10 [Tit. 1. 12 quot., H. 3. 10 O.T.], 1 P. 3. 15 
(om. A Syr. Euseb.), 2 P. 1. 12. — II^viKa etc. do not occur, only 
fjviKa in 2 C. 3. 15 f. 

5. The waning of the system of the correlative adverbs is seen 
chiefly in the indefinite adverbs, of which -Kork alone is in ordinary 

1 Hermas frequently has &8e KaKelae 'hither and thither,' Mand. v. 2. 7 etc. 

2 For eicei in A. 18. 19 BHLP have clvtov, which is only found elsewhere in 
Mt. 26. 36 (om. KC*), A. 15. 34 ß text (?), 21. 4 (not without var. lect.). 

3 In Hermas the use of del instead of -kq.vtote is one of the indications which 
mark the forged conclusion of Simonides (Sim. ix. 30-x.). 

6o ADVERBS— PARTICLES. [§ 25. § 26. 1-4. 

use (77-ws only in aVrws, p-tj-n-ws : on 7rov [Voöev] see 2 and 3); also in 
the indefinite relatives, which become confused with the definite 
forms (§§ 13, 3; 50, 1), and then in some cases (for o-n-odev sup. 3, 
o7tot€ 4) entirely or almost entirely disappear. 

6. On compounded adverbs see § 28, 7. 


1. In the use of particles the New Testament language is poor in 
comparison with the classical, not only because a considerable num- 
ber of old particles are completely absent, but more especially because 
many of the remainder are only employed in a limited way. The 
Syntax will treat of the manner of employment and the combinations 
of the individual particles ; here we merely give a table of those 
which are represented and those which are absent, together with 
remarks on the form of some of them. 

2. Particles (and conjunctions) or combinations of particles in the 
N.T. : dAAa, dpa, dv, dpa (dpaye), dpa (dpdye), «XP l ( s )> "Y^Pt 7 € > <^> ^ 7 7> 
Srj7rov (one ex.), Sio, SioVep, Slotl, edv, edvirep, el, etirep, eiYa, eiVe, eVei, 
eVeiS'^, €7reiS?j7re/3 (one ex.), [eVeiVep R. 3. 30 V.l.], eireira, ecos, ?'}, [?}, 
more correctly el (see § 3, 6), in e? p.qv O.T. quot.], tfSi], -qvUa, [ij*rep 
V.l. in Jo. 12. 43], rjToi, "va, Kadd, KaOdwep, Ka06, kuOoti, Ka9(i>s, Kai, 
Kai'irep, KaiToi(ye), pev, pevovvye, pevToi, [p^XP^^i v -^ f° r p- °^']> PV> 
pr)8e, [prjv Only in eT pijv, vide sup.], pyre, [M]TL, vai, i'?/, op.u)s, o7rdTe(one 
ex.), 07ra>s, 6Vav, ore, ort, ov (ov^t), ov8e, ovkovv (one ex.), ovv, ovre, 
(wep as in Att. prose only in combinations : SiöVep, ecirep etc.), 7rA?/v, 
7rpiv, re, (rot only in Kairot, p.evTot etc.), rotyapovv, roivvv, ws, wcrdv, 
warei, ö'jcnrep, o)CT7repet, cütrre. 1 

3. The following Attic particles are entirely wanting : drdp, are, 
aS, yovv, 8qdev, SijTa, ei'#e, p,d, vi), pi)roL, p.(ov, vvv, öVöVav, (ovkovv), 
ouTt, ovToi, tews. But the limitation of the rich store of particles 
began at an early period, as may be shown e.g. by the fact that in 
the 'Adrjvaiwv IIoAiTeia of Aristotle not only all the last-named 
particles with the exception of are are absent, but also the following 
among those enumerated under 2 : dpa, dpa, a-xpi, ye, Si'jttov, SioVep, 
SioTi, edvirep, elirep, ehe, eirei8i')iTep, (eireiirep), (t'jTrep), r/rot, Kairot, 
pevovvye, (pevTOt ?), p^XP 1 * PV Tl > va h °7*ws, o7tot€, ovkovv, ov\i, 
roiyapovv, tolvvv. 

4. 'Eav is the Hellenistic form for 'if (cp. eavrov, o-eavrov), not 
■i'jv or dv ; av however is found in the mss. of the N.T. in some few 
instances, so Jo. 12. 32 B, 13. 20 (edv DEFG al.), 16. 23 BC al., 20. 
23 bis (edv AD, semel «*), Acts 9. 2 NE. This may perhaps be 
connected with the disproportionately greater encroachment which 
edv made into the province of ov, out of which a kind of interchange 
of meanings between the two words might easily grow (modern Gk. 
uses eav and av for 'if'). 'Ea'v is found very frequently after 

1 Hermas has further kclI pfy Mand. iv. 1. 8, V. 1. 7 (Barn. 9. 6) and yovv 
( = odv, as also in other late writers, see Steph.-Dind. -fovv), Sim. viii. 8. 2 ; Bar- 
nabas has iripas ye toi in 10. 2 and elsewhere. 

§ 26, § 27- 1-2.] WORD-FORMATION. 6 1 

relatives in the N.T., as in the lxx. and the papyri: 1 Mt. 5. 19 6s 
eav (immediately followed by ös o" av), 8. 19 öttov kdv, 10. 42 8s lav 
(BD av), 11. 27 <3 eav (av D) etc.; in St. John only in 15. 7 (av B), 
1 Jo. 3. 22 (B av), 3 Jo. 5. 


1. The formation of words is naturally carried further in the 
Hellenistic language than in the classical to meet new requirements, 
but in all essentials the old patterns are adhered to. 

Verbs from noun forms in -os have termination -o« : avao-Ta-roiV, 
aTToSeKarovv (in the older lang. 6"e/<aT€ijeiv), dvaKaivovv (class. -t(eiv), 
dcf)VTrvovv ' to fall asleep ' (-tfav in class. Gk. = ' to awake,' -ovv in 
Hellenistic Gk. has the same meaning ; • to fall asleep ' in the older 
lang. = KaOvTrvovv, cp. kiriKaOvTrvovv Barn. 4. 13), SoXiovv 'to deceive' 
(ooAios) R. 3. 13 O.T. quot., öe/ieAiovv, K€<f>a\aiovv (-Aiow nBL) 
Mc. 12. 4 appears to mean 'to beat on the head ' = ko Xafafav, 
but is quite unparalleled in this sense (cp. Lob. Phryn. 95), xparaLovv, 
SO also crdtvovv from to cröevos, (lv)8vvap.ovv from Si'vajus, vexpovv, 
o-apovv = (raipeiv (from crapos : Lob. Phryn. 83), \apiTovv from X"P IS - 
Verbs in -«'w are principally compounds, see § 28, but there is also 
Si>vaT€tv from Suva-ros (aSi'va-rav is old). For l£ov8evi£eiv (Plut.) 
N.T. generally has IgovOevdv (lxx.), with -devovv as a v.l. in Mc. 9. 
12. — In -t£eiv or (after an 1) -dfav : dyidfav (ayios, old form ayifieiv), 
ai)(ßa\iDTi£eiv, dva6ep.aTi£etv, dvefiifieiv (old form -p.ovv), 8oyp.ari^€iv, 
Seiy/xari^av, IvTafadfav, dearpifav, dvcrid£eiv for dveiv (dvaia), lp.a.Tifav 
(from lp.a = £i/za, not from i/tdYiov ; lp.aTio-p.6s appears already in 
Polyb.), lovSatfav, p-VKTripifav, vrjiridfav (Hippocr.), dpOpifav, 7reAeKi- 
(«v (Polyb.), o-tvta^etv (criviov ' sieve,' also a late word ; old form 
craw, then crij9(jj), (Sta)aKop7rt{eiv (old-Ionic, Phryn. 218), o-p.vpvi.fav 
cnrXayxvLfecrOai from cr7rAay^va Ü'OSH'l, ovppopcpifav, cf>v\aKifav 
from 4>v\aKrj ' prison ' ; in Hermas a-uverigeiv from o-dvctos, Mand. iv. 
2. 2, cp. o-ocfiifav 'to make wise' (lxx.) 2 Tim. 3. 15. — Verbs in 
-tiu are likewise formed from the most various stems : (at'x/^aAwTei'cu 
only in 2 Tim. 3. 6 as a v.l. for -rifa, vide supra ; -erw Diod. Sic), 
TrayiSemiv (7rayi's), (e^)oAeöpeueiv (LXX. passim) : yvp.vr)Ttveiv (-iTet'eiv) 
from yuyuvTjT^s (§ 3, 6), /xea-irevetv from /x«rir?/s (Polyb.) 'to be naked,' 
'to be a mediator,' SO too lepareveiv (like ßacriXeveiv, riyep-oveveiv): on 
a similar pattern lyKpanveo-dai 'to behave as an eyKpa-njs' (Aristot.) 
like dpwvevecrOab : so TrepTrepeveo-Qai 1 C. 13. 4, irapaßoXzvecrdai Ph. 
2. 30 (nowhere else) 'to show oneself ^^apdßoXos , ('foolhardy'), 
dvaiSevecrdat (dvai&qs) Herrn. Vis. iii. 7. 5, dKpißeveo-Qai Barn. 2. 10. 
— In -vvo) we have o-KXr)pvvu> (like ßaövvio, p.r)Kvv<i>). Cp. W.-Schm. 
§ 16, 1. On new present formations like ctttjkw, yprjyopd see § 17. 

2. Verbal substantives in -|aos, denoting an action : dyiao-pos, 
ßaTTTi(rp.6s, lvra(piao-p.6s (-a£(o 1), ovaSioyzos, irapopyio-pos, 7reipacrp.os, 
pavTicrp:6s, o-aßßaTio-p.os (from craßßaTifo, not in N.T.), cr(i)<f>povicrp,6<i 

1 For exx. see Berl. Aeg. Urk. no. 12. 18, 13. 10, 33. 16, 46. 17 etc. 

62 WORD-FORMATION BY [§ 27. 2. 

all from verbs in -t£w, -a£w, whereas with other verbs the tendency 
to form such derivatives (68vpp6s, dp8p.6s and others in the earlier 
language) appears to have almost died out ; we only have aTTeAey/zds 
from aVcAcyxa), dpiraypös from apTrdfo : and in Hermas o-vp(fjvpp6s 
Vis. ii. 2. 2 «, TrX.aTva-p.6s Mand. v. 2. 3 (Clem. Cor. 3. 1). But 
substantives in -jut (generally denoting the result of the action) are 
formed from vei'bs of all kinds: dyvö-qpu. 'a sin,' alrcwpa A 25. 7 
(a strange form instead of the old aWlapa ' an accusation '), x 
dvTaTTooop.a (old form -crts), dvTXrjpa ' an instrument for drawing 
water,' a strange form (elsewhere dvrXy^qp, -rrjpwv), dwavyao-pa, 
dTTocTKiacrpa, ßdTTTLcrp.a (cp. supra -o-/xo?, which is never used of John's 
baptism, and of Christian baptism only in Col. 2. 12 N C BD*FG, cp. 
H. 6. 2 ; the distinction of meaning is preserved : ßaTmcrpos is the 
act of immersion, in ßdimo-pa the result is included), 2 Z£epapa, 
i"]TTi)pa, deXtjpa, tepäreu/xa (Upareveiv 1), naraXvpa (Hellenistic for 
Karaywyeioi/ ; here also there is a peculiar use of -p.a. for the place 
of lodging), Kar6pd(op.a (Polyb.), Trpöo-Kopjxa; Hermas has paraiwpa 
'a vain thing' Mand. ix. 4, pedvo-p.a 'an intoxicating drink' vi. 2. 5 
etc. (also in Philo, like eSeo-jtxa). Abstract nouns, again, take 
termination -o-is, and are mainly formed from stems that end with 
a vowel (not from verbs in -£w, where -07*05 is used) : /3tWi?, 
eVt-dörio-tg, ÖeAr/crts H. 2. 4 (elsewhere -i]pa), KaTavvgis R. 11. 8 O.T. 
quot. («aTavwro-eiv ' to stupefy ' Dan. 10. 9), 3 7re7roiö?;o-ts (TrkiroiOa, 
Phryn. 294 Lob.), 7rpdo-KAto-ts (Polyb.), TTpoo-yyo-is (dpap-rrio-ts Herrn. 
Vis. ii. 2. 5). Nouns in -eta are from verbs in -evw: apeo-K-eia (ape'o-/<os, 
-<, -eta; Polyb.), ipiOeia (Aristot.), tepaTeta (-euw sup. 1), 
/xeöoSei'a (-euetv is Hellenistic from p.e6o8os). The termination -pov-q 
occurs in a few instances : TrX^o-povrj (old), new forms ireurpovri from 
TTttdu) and eVtAv/o-yaov); Ja. 1. 25. lxx. Sir. 11. 29, related to eViA^ayzwi/. 
Without suffix is oiKooop; 'edification' or 'a building,' a new word, 
and strictly speaking incorrectly formed instead of -ia or -770-1?, 
Lob. Phryn. 490 (the formation 8op.i] belongs to a primitive word 
Sepw, not to oiKo8op.€w) ; but cp. irapaa-Kevij from -a£w and esp. the 
Attic pio-9o(f>opd. — New nouns to express the doer are formed in 
-Tri? (no longer in -rcop, -riqp): ßiao-Tijs, ßarrTLo-rijs, yoyyvcrTijs, ouokttjs, 
ooTTis (old form oot^'p), eAAvpwn/s from -i£eiv 'to speak Greek,' 
so the Greek-speaking Jew A. 6. 1 etc., ei5ayyeAio-T?}s, AuT-pam;?, 
pepto-n^, 7rpocTKvvijT7j<i ; such words, as is shown e.g. by Mt. 11. 12 
/3tu'£eTai — ßiaa-TciL, Jo. 4. 20 ff. Tvpo(TKvv(.lv — Trpoa-KvvqTai, are coined 
with almost the same facility as verbal forms. With eireu8vrtjs 'an 
upper garment' Jo. 21. 7 (already in Sophocles) cp. the German 
' Ueberzieher ' [English ' overcoat ']. — In -rtjpiov (from -Tijp) are 
iXacmjpioi' (on o-o)Ti']piov inf. 6.), aKpoa-n/ptov. — It is noticeable that 
words in -pa in the Hellenistic language follow the analogy of those 
in -o-is and -ttis (-tos) in so far that they, like the latter, now prefer 
the verbal stem ending in a short vowel and avoid the stem with 

1 AMciwiy'in Eustathius p. 1422. 21 is compared. 

2 Joseph. Ant. 18. 5. 2 uses ßcnrTtcTfws of John's baptism. 

3 Fritzsche, Paul, ad Rom. ii. 558 ff. 


a long vowel : 86 pa like Soo-is So-njs, Qkpa (already in old Doric) like 
öecrts Öctos, whence dvddepa = Att. -drjpa, 1 SO 7ro/ia = Att. Trwpa, 
xXtpa, Kptpa, even dvaarepa for -crTi]pa 2 (true Stem o-rd), Sid<rT£|ia 
A. 5. 7 D (but KardcrTrjpa Tit. 2. 3). 

3. Substantives from adjectives: with termination -ottjs: dytöVr;?, 
ciyvoTTys (old form dyveia from -euw), dS^Ao-njs, dfaXorrjs A. 2. 46 
from d$eA?js 'simple,' 'plain,' Hellenistic (elsewhere the subst. is 
always dcfitXeia), yvpvoTTjs, paraioTi]^ /xeyaAeior^s ; corresponding 
forms from substantives are deor^? (Lucian), dSeAtpöV^s (1 and 4 
Mace, Dio. Chrys.) in concrete sense 'the brotherhood' 1 P. 2. 17, 
5. 9 (Clem. Cor. i. 2. 4 ; in abstract sense Herrn. Mand. x. 1. 4), 
KvpioTrjs in concrete sense 'principality' (an angelic order) E. 1. 21 
(abstract Herrn. Sim. v. 6. 1) etc. — With -<twt| : from adj. in -pwv, 
with which this formation is specially frequent (cruy^poa-vvrj, 
pv-qpoo-vvq), kXe^poa-vvq (already found in Callimachus : in N.T. usu. 
in concrete sense ' alms ') : from adj. in -os (like SiKaioo-vvrj, 
aKepaiocrvvT} Barn. 10. 4), but with lengthening of the antepenultimate, 
as in the comparative, when the syllable preceding it is short : 
dyad(ocrvv7], dytojcrwr/, peyaXwcrvvq ; lepwo-vvq ( = lepewa: from tepew- 
which is from Upevs) occurs in the older language. With -la : 
ZXacppta, irapa^povia 2 P. 2. 16 (from irapd^pwv -oveiv, cp. evSaipovia). 

4. Substantives from substantives : The feminine in -10-0-a is the 
correct form corresponding to masculine in -i£, Qolvig «^oiVicro-a, 
but in the later language this becomes an independent suffix 
(ßaXdvLcra-a from ßaXavevs, ßao-iXio-cra, TaXdria-cra), SO in N.T. 
^.vpo^>oLVLKi,(rcra from ^vpo(f>olvi£ (Lucian) Mc. 7. 26 (v.l. ?Lvpa<f>. i.e. 
2upa <!>. : D ^»otvtcrcra, Latt. 2vpo^>otV«ro-a). 3 — Of Latin origin are 
the designations ending in -tavds derived from proper names, in the 
N.T. 'HpwSiavoC 'adherents of Herod' Mc. 3. 6 etc., and Xprjcrriavoi 
from Xprja-Tos = Xptcrrds, the heathen designation for Christians 
A. 11. 26, 26. 28, 1 P. 4. 16 (on 77 cp. § 3, 6), formed on the model 
of Pompeiani, Caesariani; in later times this form was frequently 
employed for the names of sects. 4 — Diminutives are, in keeping with 
the whole character of the N.T., not abundant; some, however, 
had become popular expressions, such as iraiSlov, TraiSdpiov, iraiUa-K-q 
(old), \pLxLov 'bread-crumb' (only in N.T. from ^i£), -n-Tepvyiov, 
d>Tiov, urdpiov 'ear' (the latter form in Mc. 14. 47 nBC, Jo. 18. 10 
NBC*LX) of the part of the body considered as such (Moeris says 
wTiov is Hellenistic for Attic ovs), 5 whereas ovs (together with d/co^) 
denotes the organ of hearing regarded as such ; St. Luke, therefore, 
atticises when he uses ovs for the part of the body (L. 22. 50: wTtov 

1 Also in the sense of 'votive offering 'L. 21. 5 according to XADX (B aA.-drj/xaai). 

2 Buresch, N. Jahrb. f. kl. Philol. 1891, 539, cod. A lxx. 

3 W.-Schm. § 16, 2 c, who explains it as due to a form QoivikIs (ßacriKis), and 
cites for ^oiviKiaaa Herodian L. ii. 455. 19 (but see ibid. i. 268. 14, ii. 708. 10). 

4 R. A. Lipsius Ursprung des Christennamens (Jena 1873) ; Blass, Hermes 
xxx. 465 ff. 

5 The popular language was fond of denoting the parts of the body by diminu- 
tives (Lob. Phryn. 211 f.), so modern Gk. fidri 'eye' from dfifuäriov, avri 'ear' 
(also awfjidnov Clem. Horn. v. 1, and as early as Isocrat. Epist. 4, 11). 

64 WORD-FORM A TION. [§ 27. 4-6. 

I My). Denoting smallness : kXivL8iqv L. 5. 19, 24, nXivdpiov (Lob. 
Phryn. 180) A. 5. 15 kBCD (v.l. kAivwv), ßißXapioiov Ap. 10. 2, 8 ff. 
(Herrn. Vis. ii. 1. 3 v.l. ßißXi8dpioi>, cp. Xi$api8iov late writers), formed 
from ßißXdpL(ov) + -i8iov (only here). The following diminutives 
contain a subjective idea and belong to the special class of viroKopur- 
TiKa [endearing terms] : Kvvdptov Mt. 15. 26 f., Mc. 7. 27 f., l\6v8iov 
Barn. 10. 5, ywaucapiov (also contemptuous) 2 Tim. 3. 6, also 
probably ovdpiov Jo. 12. 14 (elsewhere 6vos) : with the subjective 
sense of love paßSlov Herrn. Sim. viii. 2. 9. — Formed with -etov or 
-iov is elSwXeiov or -iov (§ 4, 2) from eiSwAov (also LXX.). : — With -cov 
we should not reckon lAcutov ' mount of olives,' which should rather 
be written JAcuwv gen. plur. (with variant form in A. 1. 12), but no 
doubt d(f>e8piov 'privy' Mt. 15. 17, Mc. 7. 19, cp. Kowpuv, Trepio-repetov, 
and others. 2 

5. Adjectives from verbs. — Hctöos would be formed directly 
from a verbal stem, did not this word in 1 C. 2. 4 owe its origin 
to a patent corruption (ttciOois written for -ot). In -tos (verbal ad- 
jectives) there are many instances of compound words (see § 28, 5) ; 
an uncompounded word is 7ra#?7Tos ' capable of suffering ' A. 26. 23 
(Plutarch), in the narrower sense of words in -tos ; on the other 
hand in the more general sense, equivalent to a perf. part, pass., we 
have criTio-To? Mt. 22. 4 ' fattened ' (besides compounded words). 
With the rare suffix -ojAos we have upapTuXos lxx. N.T. cp. 

6. Adjectives from nouns (and participles). — In -10s o-am/pios 
(old) ; from which the substantive tu o-w-ny/nov is formed, in LXX. 
'a thankoffering,' also in the N.T. L. 3. 6, A. 28. 28 etc. = 'salvation': 
cp. 7) (evKTrjpla A. 27. 40 (only here, £€ukt>//dios is old). From the 

LXX., again, is Aabs TrcptotVios Tit. 2. i4=»v50 03? 'a people of 
possession,' = os TrepUo-Ti, ov 6 6eo<s TrtpLeTronijo-aTO eavrw, cp. Jerome 
ap. Tisch, ad. loa, W.-Schm. § 16, 3 b. Quite unique in the Greek 
language is «riovcnos Mt. 6. 11, L. 11. 3 which cannot well be 
derived from any other source but 7} kwiovo-a sc. i)p.kpa (A. 16. 11 
and elsewhere in Acts), so that its meaning is ' bread for the coming 
day': see the detailed exposition in W.-Schm. § 16, 3, n. 23. 3 Origen 
(i. 245) was not acquainted with the word either in literature or 
in the colloquial language, and it must therefore be an artificial 
translation of an Aramaic expression. An obscure word in -ikos is 
7rio-TiKos Mc. 14. 3, Jo. 12. 3 (vap8ov jrtaTtK^s), which should perhaps 
be rendered ' genuine ' and be derived from 7rto-Tos or klo-tls, but 
may on the other hand have an entirely different origin, W.-Schm. 
§ 16, 3 b. Other forms in -ikos (or -a/cos, after t) are KvptaKos (^p-kpa. 
Ap. 1. IO, 8ei7TVOV 1 C. 11. 20), CTKew) Kepap.iKa Ap. 2. 27 with V.l. 

1 For -etov ' kiroWwveiov and the like are quoted as parallels, but even there 
■iov is at least in the majority of cases the correct form, 'AiroWwviov. But 
nowdov, KairrjXelop may be compared. In the lxx., e.g. in 1 Esd. 2. 9 AB 
have -iov. 

2 For details see Fischer, Vitia lexicorum N.T. 698 ff. 

:t [See also Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the N.T., Appendix. Tr.] 

§ 27- 6. § 28. 1-2.] WORD-FORMATION. 65 

-«Ka i.e. ' the vessels of the potter ' (Kepap.evs, but the more natural 
meaning is 'earthen,' so that the word is incorrectly used instead 
of Kepap,eovs, Lob. Phryn. 146), o-ap/a/cos = ' belonging to crdpg,' 'of 
the nature of <rap£ ' (opposed to Trvevp.aTiK.6s), in the MSS. occasionally 
confounded with crdpKivos 'consisting of flesh' (like Xißtvos and N.T. 
6a-TpdKivos) 2 C. 3. 3 (-cKos E. 15. 27, 1 C. 9. 11, 2 C. 1. 12 [FG 
-(vgl 2 C. 10. 4, 1 P. 2. 11, also 1 C. 3. 3 according to » al. [D*FG 
-ivoi] ; in the similar passages R. 7. 14, 1 C. 3. 1, H. 7. 16, while the 
best tradition is in favour of -ivos, the sense demands -ikos, since 
there is an antithesis with 7rv€i>paTi/v-os). In -ivos we have adjectives 
of time (as in class. Gk. pea-^pßptvös): dp^pivos 1 L. 24. 22 (opdpiai 
K 2 P al., an atticising correction, Lob. Phryn. 51 : -ifo's also in Herrn. 
Sim. V. 1. 1), 7rpwtVds (older form rrpaiios, 7rpwos), Kady]p.epLv6s A. 6. I, 
Herrn. Vis. i. 3. 2 (a similar form pe#r//xepivos in class. Gk.) 'daily' 
(from Kad' ij/iepav = class. KaO-qpepios), ra\iv6<; 'speedy' (from räya, 
tciy/ws) 2 P. 1. 14, 2. 1, Herrn. Sim. viii. 9. 4. 


1. A distinction is drawn in Greek between true composition 
(cruvGto-is), in which the first of the component parts, if subject to 
inflection, is represented by the stem alone without inflection, and 
improper composition (iropd0€o-is), i.e. the mere coalescing of words 
originally separate, without further adaptation than is required for 
euphony. To the class of parathetic compounds belong all com- 
pounds of verbs with prepositions, together with some substantival 
forms such as Aioorxopoi from Atos Kopoi, and many adverbs, in the 
formation of which the later language showed itself as prolific as 
it did in the production of compound verbs. A third category 
is formed by the derivatives of (true or improper) compounds 
(irapao-vvOeTa), such as iTnroTpofydv, -ta from LTnroTp6(j>os, &io<TKopiov 

from AcOCTKOpOL. 

2. To enumerate the new (parathetic) compounds formed from 
verb and preposition, together with the verbal substantives and 
verbal adjectives belonging to them, does not come within the 
province of the study of grammar. 2 We may also have more than 
one preposition combined in a word, as in the classical language ; 
special mention may be made of SiaTraparpißat. 1 Tim. 6. 5 'perpetual 
disputations' (Traparpiß-q = ' dispute ' Polyb.). Adverbs formed by 
composition or cohesion (incorrectly used as prepositions) are coined 
more freely by the later than by the classical language (Lob. Phryn. 
45 ff.) ; as a rule they are composed of preposition and adverb, 
as vTrepdvw E. 1. 21 etc. (e7ravct>, vrroKaTU) belong to the earlier period), 

1 In the Hellenistic poets the quantity of the 1, which in other words of this 
class is short, is used indifferently as long or short ; cod. B writes -ivos, not -eivos. 

2 Winer, five essays 'de verborum cum praep. compositorum in N.T. usu,' 
Leips. 1834-43 ; A. Rieder ' Verbs (and other words) compounded with more 
than one prep, in the New and Old Test.,' Progr. Gumbinnen, 1876. 


66 WORD-FORMATION. [§28-2-4. 

€K7raAat 2 P. 2. 3, 3. 5 (e'/c 7raAatov in Attic according to Phrynichus); 
also from prepos. and adj. as eKirepurcrov (beside eK7r€p«ro-ws ? as 
«BCD read in Mc. 14. 31 : the word would naturally be forced into 
an adverbial form), by accumulation v-epeKTrepuraov (-ws), E. 3. 20, 
1 Th. 3. 10, 5. 13, cp. (-5s) Clem. Cor. i. 20. 11 (§ 4, 1 note), also 
inrepTrepuro-Qs Mc. 7. 37 (v.l. vTrepeKir.), iwepXlav 2 C. 11. 5, 12. 11, 
im-epayav Clem. Cor. i. 5G. 2 ; virepeKeiva 2 C. 10. 16 is another new 
form (prep, and pron. : eireiceiva is old). 

3. True compounds are in a few cases fundamentally substantives, 
formed in such a way that in front of a substantive, which keeps 
its ordinary form, there is placed another substantive (or adject.) 
more nearly defining or restricting its meaning (e.g. lion-head, Greek 
\eovTOKe<f>as\->) an architectural term) ; so in N.T. ILvpcxpoivLcrcra or 
-iKLcrcra § 27, 4 (Aißv<poiva<es Polyb.): evpaKvkwv a hybrid word from 
edpos and aguilo (cp. eupöVoros 'north east'); xf/evSoirpofptjTt]?, -3aSeA^>os, 
-Sa7ro(TToAos, -SoSiSao-/caA.os, (\pev86papTv<; appears in Attic) ; o-ap86vv£ 
(A <rap8i6w£) Ap. 21. 20 from crapSios and ovu£, ibid, xpiwokidos 
(but \pva-6ir patron in the same verse is an adjective formed from 
77-pacrov ' leak,' sc. XLdos) ; Yjoeo^eiAenjs from XP* 0S an d o^eiAen/s, but 
words of this kind (cp. iTnrr)XdT->is, ittttoSiwkttjs) belong rather to 
compounds of subst. and verbal stem, vide infra 5 ; on the other 
hand oIko8&tttoti]^ (cp. Phryn. 373 who condemns the word: deriva- 
tive o'iKo8eo"iroTelv) does really consist of oiicos and SecnroTi]?. — The 
subst. is denned by a, particle in o-uo-T/aaTiwT^s (class.), crvp-pecrßvTepos, 
crvyKkrjpovöpos : by a verbal stem in dp^upels (but the older form is 
üp^tepews, i.e. 6 ap^wv twv lepewv), dp^tTeKTwv (which is likewise 
strictly to be explained as o apywv twv reicTovtov), dpxt-reXwvijs L. 19. 2, 
apxnrolp.i}v 1 P. 5. 4, ap^ayyeAos (but in apxtcrvvaywyos, dp^LTpiKkivos 
it is clear that the first component still continues to govern the 
second). 1 

4. There are a great number of adjectival forms composed of 
adjectives (adv., prep., numeral) and substantive (adj.), which express 
the combined notion of both ideas, such as the peculiar Sevrepoirpwov 
udßßarov L. G. i (from two numeral adjectives), variously explained, 
see Tisch, ad loc. and W. -Grimm ; an example of the ordinary type 
(particle and subst.) is dvlXeos Ja. 2. 13 (class. dmjXeys: the N.T. form 
due to to eAeos £ 9, 3), SO o-/<A?7poTpaY^/Aos (LXX.) A. 7. 51, 8ixfv\o-; 
Ja. 1. 8, 4. 8 (Hernias past.), hepoyXuxrcro'i (Polyb.), 8i<TTop.o$ and 
pov6({)9aXpos already found in classical Gk. ; tcruyyeAos= «ros rots 
uyyeAois, like Homeric la-66eo<s; especially with a preposition in the 
first place, in which case the formation of the adj. in -tos (uKpoywi'icuos 
is from -a-ios) is preferred : 7rapa#aAuo-crios (old), e-iÖava-rios 1 C. 
1. 9 = «rt davdno crweiAj/ppevos (also in Dionys, Halic), «riyeios and 
ZTTOvpdvios (old), KaraxOovios (also old); Ivwttlov (neuter of cvcottios) 
likewise takes this formation. From these words again neuter 
substantives are formed. A peculiar compound of elements which 
are coordinate and simply added together, is vvydt)p.zpov (late) 2 C. 11. 

1 There are also correspondingly formed adjectives, thus in Hernias irepiwiKpos 
'very bitter' Sim. vi. 2. 5, äwbxevos 'somewhat empty' Mand. xii. 5. 2. 

§ 28. 4-5.] BY COMPOSITION. fy 

25, 'a period of a night and a day,' Kühner i. 3 ii. 318 ; note moreover 
to 8(ü8ei<d(f)v\ov A. 26. 7 =cu 8w8iKa <pvXai (§ 44, 1) ; vtto7t6Siov 'foot- 
Stool,' viroXijvLov (kr/vos) the receptacle or vat excavated beneath the 
winepress, dvdyaiov (§§ 3, 7 ; 6, 4) ; further aKpoßiviov H. 7. 4 (old), 
fjLea-ovvKTLov (Hellenistic, Lob. Phryn. 53; § 6, 2), -»jpiwpwv 'half an hour' 
Ap. 8. 1 (1) n'uapov AP, cp. i)(j.i8paxp.ov,f]iALir68Lov etc.; Kühner i. 3 ii. 323); 
irpoa-dßßaTov, ■>)8vo(rp.ov a plant (garden mint). In the femin. we have 
1) KaAAteAatos and its opposite dypiiXaios (for which, according to 
Moeris, Attic has kotlvos) R. 11. 17, 24, not dypuXaia, although dypio- 
in the later language is also directly compounded with the substantive 
(supra 3), as in dypioKoXoKvvörj • also uKpoßvcrTia., a distorted form of 
aKpoiToa-dla or -tov (the old word) from irda-dr]. Then from adjectives 
of this kind there was a further creation of abstract substantives, such 
as a-KXy)poKap8ia 'hardness of heart' (lxx.) related to <TKXypoKdp8io<s 
(lxx.), and therefore for -KaooVia, cp. Snr\oKap8la Barn. 20. 1, and 
of verbs (cp. 5), amongst which may be specially noticed 6p6o7roceiv 
(opdoirovs is old) G. 2. 14 (nowhere else), and lyKUKilv (the word is a wrong reading, occurring also in Herrn. Mand. ix. 8) 
'to be slack in anything' Polyb. 4, 19. 10, formed directly from lv 
and Kct/cds, although no word ey/v-a/cos ever existed; lvwTi£i<r6ai A. 2. 
T4 (lxx.) is also certainly formed directly from Zv and wra, cp. 
ivuTipvi^ia-dai Clem. Cor. ii. 1, ivo-TTjOi^av Athanasius. 

5. The greater number of compounds, originally adjectival, are 
formed of substantive (adject., pronoun) or particle and verbal stem; 
from these adjectives there are then formed parasynthetic abstract 
substantives and verbs. The most ordinary form is : adj. -os, 
abstract subst. -ia, verb -e«, like iTnroTpofpos, iTnroTpo<f)ia, 'nnrorpocpib). 
So in the N.T. we have dya(9o7roios 1 P. 2. 14, dyadoiroda 4. I g 
(dyaOoTvoi-qcns Herrn. Mand. viii. 10, Sim. v. 3. 4), d-yaBoironlv 2. 15 
(beside dyadoipydv 1 Tim. 6. 18, dyaOovpyilv with V.l. dyaSoTTOiiiv 
A. 14. 17), kolXottoulv 2 Th. 3. 13, kolkottoios (and KaKovpyos, both old), 
KaKOTToalv (old), ilpyvoTTows -ilv, p.o(T\oTTo niv only in N.T. (Acts 7. 
41) of the image of the golden calf, Avhere the adjectival stem only 
exists, and only needed to exist, in idea, lcrxvpo7rotiTv (and -7roujo-ts) 
Hermas, Vis. i. 3. 2 etc. With other verbal stems there are : 
Ka.Kov)(iiv an old form (from e'x a): «aKovxos nowhere), TrXijpofopilv -ia 
(first 1 in N.T.: -</>opo? nowhere), Xoyop.ay^ilv -ia (late, other writers 
also have -pdyps), XidoßoXilv ' to stone ' together with Xi6d£uv (the 
old word was Xivav), Xaropaiv, knpo^vyilv 2 C. 6. 14 (Inpo^vyos 
LXX.), dvOpcoTTOKTovos, dvdpwTrdpicTKos (apecTKw), of uncertain meaning 
8igioXdßos Acts 23. 23 (an infantry corps), according to a probably 
certain conjecture KiVipßaTivav = -iiv Col. 2. 18 (Ktreyußd-njs has to 
be imagined : the word is formed like ip,ßanviLv) etc. Where the 
verbal stem has an active sense the adjectives generally are paroxy- 
tone (in the case of a short paenultima) or oxytone (if the paen. 
is long), whereas in the case of a passive stem (and a short 
paenultima) the accent is thrown back on to the first part of the 
word (7rpwTOTOKos ' firstborn,' whence -rrpwroTOKia, cp. tvayykXiov, 

1 [Tr\t]po(popiZcTdaL occurs in lxx. Ecclesiastes 8. II. Tr.] 

68 WORD-FORM A TION [§ 28. 5-G. 

II. 12. 16). But for words of passive meaning the form of the verbal 
adj. in -tos is preferred to that in -os; thus in N.T. iraTpoirapdooTos 
1 P. 1. 18, o->7to/3/3wtos Ja. 5. 2, Xi6('xTTpo)Tos (Sophocles) Jo. 19. 3, 
iroTafioif>6f>i]To<; (-<j>opeiv) Ap. 12. I5, 1 etüwAoöi'Toi' (like lepodvrov) ; 
just as in active words -t>/s (the noun of the agent) may take 
the place of -os, xpeofaiXeTijs supra 3, KapSioyvwcmis Acts 1. 24, 
15. 8 Herrn. Maud. iv. 3. 4 (nowhere else), 7r/)oo-w7roA7/jU7rT7is 10. 34 
(-TÜv, -iip-xj/ia). From 8t8da-K€tv the compounds are formed with 
termination -8tSdo"/<aAos : vo/xoStSdo-KaAos, KuAoötSucrKaAos Tit. 2. 3 
(like xopo8i8d<TK. in older Greek), erepoStSao-KuAeu''? ( = eVepa Stoao-Ketv'? 
or = £T£/3ois 8tSao-K-dAots xprj(rdatl) 1 Tim. 1. 3, 6. 3; from <pvXd(T(ru) 
with -(f>v\ag (Hellenistic words): Secr/zo<£rAa£ A. 16. 23 (ya^b^uAa/ciov 
Mc. 12. 41 etc. LXX., a TrapacrvvOerov from ya£o(f>v\ug) ; from verbs 
in -uw, -eo) with termin. -77s (1st decl.): 7raTpoAwas (§ 6, 2) dAoaV, 
^pevajraTijS 2 oVa-raV (whence (pptvairarav), 7rop<pi'po7n<jA?is 7r(oAetv, with 
fem. -7TcoAis A. 16. 14 ; SO also dpcrei'OKoiT/)S (KotTu£eo-#ai, koLti]) 1 C. 
6. 9, 1 Tim. 1. 10, etSwAoAaTp7/s (Aarpeueiv), whence etSwAoAaTpeiv 
Hermas, el8u>XoXarpta N.T. (a more correct form than -eta like 
Xarpeia; B however, except in 1 C. 10. 14, has -Xarpda = -ia), and 
from dp\€iv we have words in -«px >)S beside those in -apxos, see § 9, 2. 
In u(f>6aXp.o8ovX(.a E. 6. 6, Col. 3. 22 (B reads with et, like SovAetu 
which is formed from SouAei'w) the underlying word is 6<f)9aXp.68ovXo<> 
(which occurs in Const. Apost.), where the formation is dependent 
on SoCvVos. Occasionally 77s, -es also appears as a termination: 

etAiKpirvys (k'/hvco), subst. -tVeta (old), T»iAauy?ys Mc. 8. 25 (-<3s; V.l. 

S?;Aauyws K* al.), an old poetical word, but also in LXX.: the sense 
has become weakened to ' clear,' so also in Herrn. Sim. vi. 5. 1 ; 
yovv7reT?7s (ttittto), Eurip.), -Telv (Polyb.), vowe^i'ß (cp. inf. 7) from 
e^Cü (Polyb.), iepo7rpe?T7/s (Att.). 'AXeKropocfuovia ' cock-crowing ' 
(vulgar word, Lob. Phryn. 229 = ■>} «pa rjviKa 6 dX. <7Wet) is peculiar, 
there being no conceivable adjective from which it can be derived. 
In yAüKTo-oKopov 'a case' 3 Jo. 12. 3, 13. 29 the verb Kopeiv, Kop.t£etv 
is concealed ; the Atticists require in place of this vulgar form the 
longer yAtoTTo/copeiov Phryn. Lob. 98 (cp. xepvißdov ' a hand-basin '). 

6. In the older language it frequently happens that in compound 
words of this kind the verb is given the first place (fapeoiKos, S>)£t- 
öi'/i.os), in the later language this does not often occur ; on compounds 
in dpxi- vide supra 3: WeXoOpija-Kia (-eta B, cp. 5) Col. 2. 23 based on 
e'#eAo#p>jo-/<os (from dprjo-Kos) which is not found, cp. e'ÖeAoStSdo-KaAos 
Hermas, e'#eAoSovA(e)ia Plato, e'&Aex^pos Demosth., WeXoKaxeiv Hdt., 
(WeXo- expressing spontaneity) : </>iAo#eos, t/nAdyaöos and c/uAavros 
(Aristot.), ((/uAoVpwTos late language, and) <piAo7rpwTeiW 4 3 Jo. 2 (no 

1 Hesychius also has the phrase iroTapo<p6pr)Tov iroieTv, s.v. an 6e pa ev. 

- I.e. one who deceives Aw oini mind = 'conceited'; the word also occurs on 
a papyrus of the 2nd cent. B.c. (in rhetorical and artificial prose, Grenfell 'An 
Alexandrian erotic fragment,' Oxf. 1896, p. 3). 

3 Strictly a case for the mouthpiece of a flute (yXQrra). 

4 Found already in an Attic inscription of the 1st cent. B.c., 'E0. dpx<it.o\. 
1893, 49 ff., 1. 30. 

§ 28. 6-7.] BY COMPOSITION. 69 

forms with /zicro- appear in N.T.). — The words compounded with cer- 
tain pronouns and particles deserve a special mention : aii-oKcn-aK/Dn-os 
Tit. 3. 11 (auTOfiaTos and avdalperos are old); words with d- privative 
for the most part formed in -tos, e.g. in N.T. uytvtaXoyrjTos, dSiaKpiros, 
dSidXenrTos, 1 (dSvvaTos, -civ are old), olk aTayvcuo-Tos, aKaraKaAiTTTOS, 
uKaTOLKpiTOS, aKardXvTOS, a.KaTairav(rTos } (d/v-ardo-raTOS is old, -acta 
Polyb.), dva7ToAoyr;Tos, dueTavd?/Tos, (dvd^Tos old), dve£epevvr]TOS, dve£- 
lyyiao-Tos etc., not however exclusively in a passive sense {e.g. those 
from aTToXoyeicrdai, [p.eTa]voeiv) ; so also aVTaujTOS Jude 24 (old) is 
active. 2 The opposite to o- is ev- (e.g. evTip.os = iv np.y opposed to 
drt/ios) : ep.TrepiTop.os is Opposed to d7repirp.rjros in Barn. 9. 6 C and 
= ev TTepnop.y of nG: Paul has avop.os — evvopos 1 C. 9. 21, § 36, 11. — 
With ev we have: evapeo-ros (already in Xenoph.), eiyzeTdoWos 'ready 
to impart' 1 Tim. 6. 18, eiVpdo-o'eKTos, ei7repio-Taros H. 12. 1 (nowhere 
else) probably = fj pa6Y<os irepiio-rapevr) ' easily surrounding and 
thereby hindering ' a person ; with 6Y0-- : Svo-ßdaraKros, Svo-eppi'j- 
vevros, 8vo~v6r]Tos. 'A(v)- (and 6W-) can also be compounded with 
ordinary adjectives (in classical Gk. dvayvos, oYcra-yvos), but in the 
case of evTrdpeSpos 1 C. 7. 35 we should rather refer the word to 
TrapeSpevew than to TrdpeSpos ; a compound of adverb and verb is 
quite inadmissible, therefore evSoKeiv (Hellenistic) must be derived 
from an imaginary evSoxos (Sexopai), certainly not from SoKeiv (aorist 
evSoKijcra), similarly the old word KapaSoKeiv (N.T. diroKapaSoKia) is 
derived through an imaginary KapaSoKos from A-dpa and Sexopai 
(cp. SoKevu)). 3 Ei'dyyeAos (class.) is from ev and dyyeXXew • whence 
ei'ay-yeAtov (as early as Homer) = reward for good news, thanks for a 
good message, cp. 7rpwTOTd/aa supra 5 ; it is only late writers who 
employ it for the good news itself; evayyeXi(ea6ai 'to bring good 
news' is also found in Attic Greek.— Tlpoo-^dyiov Jo. 21. 5, which 
according to Moeris is Hellenistic for Attic 6\pov 'something eaten 
with bread,' comes from 7rpds and <payelv ; 7t^oo-^Avtos however (lxx.) 
is connected with Trpoo-kpxeo-6o.i («n/Ai's, eVryAtVjys are old). — A special 
formation is that in -dcria, -eo-ia, -lo-ia, -oo-ia, -vo-la, allied to -o-is, and 
not to be confused with abstract nouns from adjectives in -tos 
(aKarao-rao-ta), since the former has the active sense of the verbal 
substantive: 6pKiop.oo-ia 'an oath,' 6po6eo-l.a A. 17. 26 'a setting of 
bounds ' (unless with Hesychius Td opodecna should be read, ep. rd 
ö'pia; yvpvaxrLov, cr vpir 60- lov), 8iKaioKplcria 'righteous judgment' E. 2. 5, 
alpaTeKxyo-La H. 9. 22, also TraAiyyevccri'a (yiveadat) Tit. 3. 5 ; in com- 
position with a preposition this formation appears in the older 
language, e.g. d^oo-räo-ta {irpoo-Tdo-ia is as early as Attic ; also from a 
simple verb ovopdo-ia). 

7. Of compound adverbs, which were not originally derived from 
adjectives, there are not many instances in the N.T. In -et there 
are irapivXriOeL L. 23. 18, iravoiKei A. 16. 34, in the cultivated lan- 
guage of Luke, although these particular instances are not Attic ; 

1 See note 3, p. 68. 

2 But aweipaaTos Ja. 1. 13 is passive, cf. § 36, 11. 

3 Cp. § 6, 7 iravooKevs. 

70 PROPER NAMES. [§ 28. 7-8. § 29. 

cp. Kühner i. 3 ii. 303 (l is probably an incorrect spelling, eW^vurri 
and the like have 1). 'OpodvpaSov is frequent in the Acts (also occur- 
ring in R. 15. 6), a classical word. (For adverbs in -Bov see Kühner 
ibid. 307 f.) 

8. As is already apparent from the preceding instances, the em- 
ployment of compound words in the N.T. is fairly large, and is not 
absent even from the simplest style, although the more elevated style 
naturally has a larger number of them : for the SarXd (as Aristotle 
terms the compounds) serve from the earliest times as an embellish- 
ment to the speech. In the short letter to Titus the following 
striking instances occur (verbal compounds and others are neglected) : 

(LSoKi/ius, aKapiros, ÜKarayi'Cüo-Tos, dpa^os, dvey«Aj;Tos, dvor/TOS, dvo/zia, 
avvTTOTaKTOS, drux/jeA'/ys, d7rci$?js, dcrwTia, dc^öopta, dipevBijs ; av9d8r)s, 
avrOKaraKpiTOS', aia'XpoKepS'qs j evdpeo-Tos ; yei'eaAoy ia\ UpoTrpeiri]*; ; KaAo- 
StSdiTKaAos ; parauo Xoy os ; oi/<oi>p(y)os, otKOVopos • 7raAiyyev£cria; ireid- 
apyeiv ; <pi\aya6os, </><Aaj'Spos, (f)iXai'6pojTrta } (ptXo^evos, (f)i\oT€KVOS ; 

<^peia7r(tT^s. — With regard to the manner of the composition, it is 
further to be noticed that, at least in the case of words compounded 
with numerals, the numeral undergoes no elision as it does in Attic, 
but remains intact, in accordance with the effort after a clearer 
isolation of the words — a tendency which has likewise diminished 
the number of cases of elision between separate words (§5, 1, cp. 3, 12). 
Thus TCTpadpxrjs, -\€lv Tisch, in Acts 13. 1 according to N*, L. 3. 1 N*C 
etc. (Tisch. Oll L. loc. cit.), Teo-o-epaKovraerijs A. 7. 23, 13. 18, €KO.TOVTa- 
e-n/s R. 4. 19 (which is an old form in dialects, but this is due to 
Feros Kühner i.' ! ii. 332 ; Att. -toi't?;? from -toc-t^s) ; in addition to 
these, dyaOoepyelv 1 Tim. 6. 18, dAAt>Tpioe7Ti<XK07ros 1 P. 4. 15 KLP, 
but t*¥> -rpieir-'f cp. LXX. ypaupaToeia-uyajyei's (Deut. 31. 28), paKpo- 
rjpepeveiv, upytoivo^oos, later 6po-ovcrios and the like. 


In the proper names of the N.T. the only grammatical point 
which calls for attention is the class of (hypocoristic) abbreviated 
names. These abbreviated names have always existed in Greek, 
and present a great diversity in their formation, see Bechtel-Fick, 
Griech. Personennamen 2G ff. : -is, -ias, -eias, -«as (->ys), -i»s, -iA(A)os, 
-i>(A)Aos, ■oi', -uav etc.; the Hellenistic language, on the other hand, 
as it meets us in the N.T., has hardly any other form of the abbrevi- 
ated name than that in -as, which is employed not only when the 
full name contains an o, as in Ai'-nVas Ap. 2. 13 from AvTtVaTpos, but 
also when there is no such support for it, and the second half of a 
name containing two stems is completely set aside. These short 
names were in some cases given at birth, as when a Mantitheus called 
his son Mantias, a Niceratus Nicias, a Demoteles Demon, but in others 
the person originally had the full name, but was frequently called 
by the shorter name, as Menodorus the admiral of Sextus Pompeius 
is spoken of by the historians sometimes by his full name, sometimes 

§ 29-] PROPER NAMES. y i 

as Menas (W.-Schm. § 16, 9). 1 An instance of this in the N.T. is 
SiAovavds, as he is always called in St. Paul (also 1 P. 5. 1 2), and SiAas 
A. 15. 22 etc.: also no doubt A7roAAuiv6os A. 18. 24 D and AttoAAcj? 
in St. Paul (A7reAA?/s « in Acts, see § 6, 2), Ap7rAiaTos R. 16. 8 with 
v.l. 'AfxirXias; but 'E7ra</>/Das Col. 1. 7, 4. 12 (of Colossae) Philem. 23 
and 'E7ra<£/3oSiTos Ph. 2. 25, 4. 18 (of Philippi) cannot be one and the 
same person, although undoubtedly the one name is an abbreviation 
of the other. The remaining abbreviations in -as, in many cases of 
which the original name is not distinctly recognisable, are: Ap-rcpas 
(ApTeptSw/oos, Varro de lingua Lat. viii. 21), 'Eppas ('EppdSwpos and 
the like), Zr/va? (ZnvdSwpos, see Bekk. Anecd. 857), Nvpcpas (NvpcpdS.), 
'OAvp7ras ('OAvp7rtd8a)pos), Anpas (A^pi/rpios ?), STec^avas (Srecpavrp 
<£dpos ? or a development of Sre^cu'os, found in Attic Greek I), 2 
ITapperas (ilappei/wi/), 3 TLarpoßas (LTaTpd/?ios), Aou/cas (Aovkolvos 1 
AovkiXios ?). 4 In -77s there are A^eAA^s E. 16. 10 (vide supra), and 
t Epp.rj<s ibid. 14 (which can hardly be merely identical with the name 
of the god, although at a later period this kind of appellation is also 
found); 5 in -ws there is only AttoAAw?, vide supra. ■ The name 
AvSpeas, which has early attestation, is of a genuine old Greek form. 

1 See also Crusius, N. Jahrb. fur Philol. 1891, p. 385 ff. 

2 Bechtel-Fick, op. cit. 253 f., regard "Zrefyavos itself as an abbreviation of 
^i\o-(XT€(f)avos or of Sre^apo-KA-f/s. 

3 Ibid. 205 (cp. Hapfx€i>i5r}s, -i'otcos, -Uav, -/uem etc. ). 

4 Some ancient Latin MSS. translate the title Kara AovkcLv by secundum 
Lucanum. In 'kvbpbviKov /cat 'lovvlav R. 16. 7 is commonly found a man's 
name 'low las ( = Junianus ?) ; some of the ancient commentators (see Tisch.) 
took them to be a married couple like Aquila and Priscilla. 

5 Ibid. 304 ff. 



1. It has already been noticed (in § 2, 1) that it is in the syntax, 
i.e. in the method of employing and combining the several word- 
forms and ' form-words ' current in the language, that the principal 
grammatical difference between the classical and the N.T. language 
undoubtedly lies, just as it is here too that there is the greatest 
difference between the individual writers of the N.T. It is also on 
the syntactical side that the language itself has shown the greatest 
development, and moreover it is here that the antithesis between 
the artificial writer and the plain narrator of facts or the letter- 
writer — as also that between the man who has received a pure 
Greek education and the man whose education has been wholly 
or preponderantly Hebrew — is most clearly marked. Hence the 
difference in culture between the individual N.T. writers must make 
itself felt in their syntax, from the author of the Apocalypse at one 
extreme to Paul, Luke, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
at the other. 

2. The two principal kinds of words are the noun and the verb. 
The simplest sentence is formed by the combination of these two, 
where the noun (oVo/xa) represents the subject, i.e. the fundamental 
idea, and the verb (pypa) represents the predicate, i.e. some further 
statement concerning the subject. If however the predicate is 
complex, the noun must very soon be called into requisition for 
this office as well, and will serve sometimes as the principal part of 
the predicate, sometimes as the complement of the verb. In the 
former case, where one noun serves the purpose of specifying and 
defining another noun, the verb is in many cases a mere 'form- 
word ' necessary for the statement of this relation, though like 
every verb it still presents the two inflections denoting tense and 
mood. It is therefore only natural that, at least in the case of 
the commonest tense, the present, and the commonest mood, the 
indicative, the language should omit the verbal ' form-word ' ' to be ; 
as readily intelligible. On the question of the omission or non- 
omission of the auxiliary verb different languages are divided. In 


§ 30. 2-3.] SUBJECT AND PREDICA TE. 73 

Hebrew the omission is the rule, in Greek it is allowable from the 
earliest times and occurs also in the N.T., whereas modern Greek 
has given up this liberty and always inserts the auxiliary verb. 

3. Omission of the auxiliary verb. By far the most frequent 
instance of omission, as in the classical language, is that of the 
commonest form of the pres. indie, of the auxiliary verb, namely 
the 3rd pers. sing. &rriv. Still this omission never grew into a 
fixed usage of the language, except in the case of a few stereotyped 
phrases. Such are: otJAov ort (class.) 1 C. 15. 27, (1 Tim. 6. 7 TI), 
also with reverse order of words on ..., 5t}Aov G. 3. 11 ; ti epol 
(rjp.iv) Kal o-ot Mt. 8. 29, Mc. 1. 24, 5. 7, L. 4. 34, 8. 28, Jo. 2. 4 1 

( = Hebr. Tf^l "\!D~n"/2 Judges 11. 12 etc.; there are, however, 
similar classical phrases); 2 ti irpbs ere (r/p-ds) Mt. 27. 4, Jo. 21. 22 f., 
quid hoc ad te (similar classical phrases), 3 cp. tI yap p.01 1 C. 5. 12, 
and many other instances, infra § 50, 7 ; ti (/*ot) to o^eAos 1 C. 15. 
32, Ja. 2. 14, 16 (aAAa ti tovtwv 6'</>eAos auTots Demosth. 9. 69); 

€Tl piKpOV, Kal ... JO. 14. 19, 16. l6 f., I9 (cTl fl. OVoV OCTOV H. 10. 37 

O.T., but in lxx. Is. 26. 20 without this ellipse) ; /ta/<apios dvrjp 
os- Ja. 1. 12, E. 4. 8 O.T. (Hebr. "ttTNH ^TÖi), so also p,a K dpioi ot 
7rT(ji\oi etc. Mt. 5. 3 etc., in this exclamation where the 3rd pers. 
is used the auxiliary verb is never expressed (it is different with 
the 2nd pers., Mt. 5. 11, 16. 17, and in a statement of fact, 11. 6 [om. 
ia-Tiv X ab] = L. 7. 23): cp. the classical paKapios y' dvyp e'vwv k.t.A. 
Aristoph. Ran. 1482. The classes of sentence where this omission 
is particularly frequent are exclamations (A. 19. 28, 34 peydkrj -q 
'Aprepis 'E<£eo-iW, R. 11. 33 d>? dve^epevur/ra to. Kptpara avrov) and 
questions (L. 4. 36 ti's 6 Adyo? outos; A. 10. 21 ti's 1) alria 6Y rjv — ; 
R. 3. I Tt to 7repur<rbv tov 'lovSaiov, rj Tis 1) w^eAeta rrjs irepiToprjs ;) : 
but it is also found not infrequently in statements of fact, Mc. 14. 
36 7ravT<x Sward crot, H. 9. 16 f. ottov Sia&rjKr], ddvarov dvdytci] <f)epeo~6aL 
tov SiadepevoV 8iad'rji<r) yap £7ri vexpols /3e/3ata, 1 C. 10. 13 and 2 C. 
1. 18 7rio-Tos 6 #eds, 1 Th. 5. 24 7rio-Tbs 6 KaXwv v/xds (with eo-T6v in 
2 Th. 3. 3, but the verb is wanting in FG al.), 7t<.o-tos 6 Aoyos 1 Tim. 
1. 15, 3. 1, 4. 9, 2 Tim. 2. 11, Tit. 3. 8. Another class of expression 
where (as in classical Greek) the omission is common consists of 
impersonal phrases; dvdynrj H. 9. 16 (vide supra), 9. 23, R. 13. 5? 
(with iirri Mt. 18. 7 but om. BL), wpa R. 13. 11, e|ov A. 2. 29, 2 C. 
12. 4, dSiVarov H. 6. 4, 18, 10. 4, 11. 6, el SuvaToV (as we say 'if 
possible') Mt. 24. 24, Mc. 13. 22, R. 12. 18 (G. 4. 15 vide infra), 
but with lo-TtV Mt. 26. 39, Mc. 14. 35. Ke^aAatov Se H. 8. 1 is 
classical. The verb may also be omitted even when it is not a 

1 Nonnus in his metrical paraphrase presents a very noteworthy various 
reading : rl ifj.oi, yvvat, rje aol aürrj ; = rl e/xoi 7) croc yvvai ; ( ' What is this to me or 
toyou?'cp. the following words ovTruiJKei i) wpct/tou). Cp. tL 5e aoi raOra Aristoph. 
Lysistr. 514. 

2 Kühner, Gr. ii. 364 (Herodot. 5. 33 trot de /cat tovtokti tois irpr)y/j.a.<n tL zgti ; 
Demosth. 29. 36 rl tu vö/iu) Kal rrj ßaaävu ;). 

3 Ovdtv vpbs top Atövvaov ; Dem. 18. 2I OÜ5& «art drjwov Trpos epi. 


mere copula: 1 C. 15. 40 nal o-wjxcxTa eirovpdvia (sc. cctt'lv 'there are ) 
Kai er. €Triyeta. Other forms of d/u are omitted : «lo-iv with /xaKapioi 
vide supra, R. 11. 16 et Se rj airap^ dyia, Kai to (pvpa/xa, kclI 
el n pi(\i dyia, Kai ot kAciSoi, cp. R. 4. 14, 1 C. IG. 9, H. 2. 11 etc. 
El|iC, €<r(ieV, el are not often omitted, and the omission is even more 
rare when <fyw, i)fxel^, or o-v are not inserted; Mc. 12. 26 = A. 7. 32 
O.T. eyw 6 öeus 'Aßpad/x k.t.X. (but lxx. has ei/tt here, though it is 
absent from the original Hebrew, and so Mt. 22. 32; also some MSS. 
in Mc. and Acts), Jo. 14. 11, 2 C. 10. 7 ; without a pronoun 2 C. 
11. 6 el 81 ko.1 l8iu>Ti]s Tw A.oy<o (sc. el/xl which D*E introduce, St. 
Paul has been speaking of himself just before in verse 5), 1 Ap. 15. 4 
on /xoVos oo-ios (sc. et), Ph. 3. 15. 'Hv 3rd sing, is always omitted in 
the phrase w (rj) 6vop.a L. 1. 26 f., 2. 25, 8. 41, 24. 13 (D oVo/zaTi), 
18 (oVo/iaTi «B al.), A. 13. 6 (D is different), or o5 to ovofxa Mc. 
14. 32 (<3 C), or in the still more Hebraic (cp. 1 Kings 1. 1 etc.) 

Kai to ovo/xa avr?ß (avrov) L. 1. 5, 27 ; parenthetically ovojxa avTo> 

(Demosth. 32. 11 ' \puTTo<$>Q>v ovo/xa avrw) Jo. 1. 6 (with fjv inserted 
M*D*), 3. 1 («* ovo/xan, as Luke has elsewhere in his Gospel and 
almost always in the Acts [class.], cp. §§ 33, 2 ; 38, 2 ; Xenophon 
Mem. 3, 11. 1 writes jj ovo/xa rjv) ; in these phrases it makes no 
difference whether fjv is to be supplied (with persons) or lo-riV (with 
place-names). "Ecrrat (or io-ri) is omitted in 1 P. 4. 17, 1 C. 15. 21, 
cp. 22. '"Hi only occasionally in St. Paul (2 C. 8. 11, 13). Ei'-r) is 
commonly omitted in formulas expressing a wish, such as i'AeoSs 0-0 
(sc. 6 Oeos eli]) Mt. 16. 22, elpip'i] vfiiv etc., as in classical Greek 
(i'Aaos Soph. O.C. 1477 ; cp. lxx. 2 Kings 20. 20) and in Hebrew 

(?p D-Cü) ; in doxologies such as evXoyiirbs 6 0e6s (2 C. 1. 3 etc.) 
= Hebr. E^rCX ~1*"Q (Ps. 66. 20 etc.) we may supply either 'is' 
(cp. R. 1. 25 os ecnriv evX. k.t.X., 2 C. 11. 31 6 tov evXoy., 1 P. 4. 11 
w (.(TTiv [io-TLv om. A] ?; S6£a, Buttmann p. 120) or 'be' (Winer, who 
compares 1 Kings 10. 9 yevotro evX., Job 1. 21 etij ei'A.) ; the former, 
however, appears to be the sense in which the N.T. writers under- 
stood the phrase. "E<rra> is omitted in /xi/Sev o-oi Kai ™ Slkuiw Jfceivtp 
Mt. 27. 19 (cp. for the formula what is said above), in x^P ts Tt ? ^ e( ? 
(class.) 2 C. 8. 16, 9. 15, (R. 6. 17); see further H. 13. 4, 5 tililos 6 
yd/xos k.t.A., R. 12. 19 ff., Col. 4. 6. On the omission of elvat and 
wv cp. §§ 34, 5 ; 73, 4 and 5 ; 74, 2. The present or imperf (aor. 
and fut.) of efvai (yivecrtfai, Trapetvai, Trapayiv.) may, after Hebrew 
precedent, be omitted after ISov = nzn, which can stand by itself 
for the verbal predicate, though it may also be introduced in 
addition to the predicate. Mt. 3. 17 (17. 5) Kai ISov cfxovi/ (sc. eyevero) 
€K twi- ovpavtav Xeyovo-a (but the same phrase occurs without ISov 
A. 10. 15), L. 5. 18 Kai ISov dropes (pepovTes k.t.X. (sc. i/crav, irapr/o-av 
as in 13. 1), cp. 5. 12, A. 13. 11 Kai vvv ISov %elp K ^p^ov e7ri ere, 8. 
36. On the more extended use of the ellipse of the verb vide 
infra § 81. 

1 On R. 1. 15 oürws to Kar' e/xe wpödvfxos (so more correctly than -ov) sc. ei/il 
{64>ei\eTT)s elfiL precedes), see § 42, 2. 


4. Absence of the subject. On the absence of the subject, where 
it is not contained in the verb or in the context, the following 
remarks may be made for the N.T. usage. The so-called impersonal 
verbs expressing meteorological phenomena are almost entirely want- 
ing. Bpex« (the vulgar word for vei, which nowhere appears) is 
personal in Mt. 5. 45, sc. 6 6e6s (lxx. Gen. 2. 5, but ö 6eos vei is also 
a classical phrase), impersonal in Ja. 5. 17, L. 17. 29 (Ap. 11. 6 I'va 
/lit) tj£tos ßp*XQi ^ n tne Vulgate simply pluat) ; ßpovrä, 1 do-rpdirTet etc. 
are nowhere found (?) darpairi] darpdirrovo-a L. 17. 24; the verb is 
used = ' to shine ' as in class. Greek ibid. 24. 4, cp. irepiacnpaTrTeiv A. 9. 
3, 22. 6 ' to shine round about '). Equally uncommon in the N.T. are 
the classical expressions in which the agent is readily supplied from the 
verb in the person to whom some particular task belongs [e.g. eK7Jpv£e 
sc 6 Krjpv£): o-aÄTTtcrei 1 C. 15. 52 'the trumpet shall sound' (Winer 
compares the German ' es läutet '; in any case ö o-aXiriyKTiß cannot 
be understood, the most that can be supplied is 1) o-dXiriy^). Peculiar 
phrases are rptTTjV ravrrjv ypipav ayei ('it is,' as ayw rjpepav is used) 
L. 24. 21, and a7rex et 'it is enough ' Mc. 14. 41 (Anacreontea 28. 31 ; 
but D has an. to reAos, the matter has received its completion). 
Somewhat more frequent is the impersonal passive, like Latin itur 
'one goes,' but this usage was never developed to any great extent 
in Greek : Mt. 7. 2 iv w ptTpw p^Tpelre perp^Oyjaerai ( = Mc. 4. 24, 
L. 6. 38), L, 6. 38 SiSore Kal So^creTcu (cp. Mt. 7. 7, Mc. 4. 25), 
where the writer passes at once to the 3rd pers. plur. act. with 
equivalent meaning perpov ... 8(x.crovo-iv : 1 P. 4. 6 va<pols evijyyeXio-drj, 
R. 10. 10, 1 C. 15. 42 f. a-ireiperat, tv cp&opa, lyeipercu iv d<p6apcrla 
k.t.X., Herrn. Mand. iii. 3 eTrtcrrevOi] tw Aoyw pov. But kppkOti on 
Mt. 5. 21 does not come under this head, since the question 'What 
was said V finds its answer in the on clause ; in the same way vps-rei, 
TTpknov ccrrt, Sei, escort, t'£ov (cVti), «yevero, dvkßti €7rt tttjv Kap&iav 
avTov (A. 7. 23)2 followed by an infinitive are not instances of the 
loss of the subject. The use of the 3rd pers. plur. act without a 
subject is occasioned by the indefiniteness of the agent, but the sub- 
ject may also, if one likes, be denoted b} T ol dvOpoxroi, as in L. 6. 31 
Kadws ßeXere '(va ttoiwo-lv vplv ol dv6p. = ' that one should do unto you.' 
The instances of omission in this case are not very many : Mt. 7. 16 
o-i'AAeyovcriv, Mc. 10. 13 Trpocrecfrepov, L. 17. 23 epovo-iv, 12. 20, 
Jo. 15. 6, 20. 2, A. 3. 2, Ap. 12. 6 (1 C. 10. 20).— In the formulas of 
citation such as Aey« 2 C. 6. 2, G. 3. 16 etc., ^o-ti' 1 C. 6. 16, H. 8. 5, 
eipijKe H. 4. 4, 6 #eos is to be understood (' He says ') ; in 2 C. 10. 10 
(p-qo-iv («DE etc., ? 'one says') appears to be a wrong reading for 
<pao-[v (B), unless perhaps a tis has dropped out (but cp. Clem. Horn, 
xi. 9 ad init.). 

1 BpovTT) yeyovev take its place in Jo. 12. 29. 

2 Used impersonally in Herrn. Mand. iv. 1, fx.7) avaßaivirw aov eiri rty Kapdicw 
TTepl yvvaiKOs dWorpias (Hebr. zb'hy n'ry). 

7 6 AGREEMENT. [§ 31. 1-2. 


1. The arrangement (crvvTagts) of the different parts of the 
sentence, primarily of subject and predicate, involves a mutual 
assimilation, inasmuch as the individual nouns and verbs are not 
represented by a single abstract radical form, but only appear in 
certain definite and distinctive forms, and these forms cannot differ 
from each other in different parts of the sentence, where they refer 
to the same thing or person. In addition to its application in the 
case of subject and predicate, this law of agreement holds good also 
for nouns which are bound up together into a smaller whole within 
the sentence, one noun more nearly defining the other (the attribute, 
apposition). The individual forms [or inflections] to which nouns and 
verbs are subject express the following ideas : (a) one of the three 
genders, since there are nouns which possess different forms for these 
genders (adjectives), or which at least draw a distinction between 
the masculine and feminine genders (designations of persons such 
as ßacriXevs - ßa.a-ikio-0-a) ; (b) one of the two numbers (the dual no 
longer existing in the N.T.) — this applies equally to nouns and 
verbs; (c) one of the five cases (nouns) ; ((/) one of the three persons 
in the case of the verb, while the noun is for the 1st and 2nd persons 
represented by a certain class of words — the pronouns. Any com- 
bination of words where the agreement in any of these respects is 
not adhered to is strictly proscribed as a solecism, except in some 
definite cases where the language admits of the violation of the 
law of agreement. 

2. Want of agreement in gender. — Instances of an adjectival 
predicate in neuter sing, agreeing with a feminine subject are : 
Mt. 6. 34 dpKtrbv rf] '//jtepfi '</ KOKto avnjs, 2 C 2. 6 iKavbv no tolovtm 
1) (—LTL/xia avTrj, A. 12. 3 D iStav <>~i äpfordv icrriv Tots 'IovSat'ois ?} 
iirixeiprjcris clvtov. The third instance is, however, uncertain, since 
the text in I) may be due to corrupt conflation of different readings. 
In the other two instances it appears better to regard dpKeröv and 
iKavov as imitations of the Latin satis (cp. L. 22. 38 ISov p.d^aipai 
wSe 8vo — iKavov €<ttw, Herrn. "\ is. iii. 9. 3 tu apicerov rrjs t/30(£i}s satis 
cibi ; on the other hand the predicate is dpnerös in 1 P. 4. 3) than 
to compare the classical usage in general propositions such as owe 
äyaßbv TToXvKocpaviij ; in instances like the last the word ' thing ' 
must be supplied, and a comparison is drawn between the general 
idea contained in the subject and other things of a different charac- 
ter. KaXbv to SXas Mc. 9. 50, L. 14. 34 'salt is a good thing' 
would also in classical Greek lie expressed by something like 
\in)(Ttpov ol aXes ; but there is an absence in the N.T. of analogous 
instances of this use with a masculine or feminine subject, just as 
the fuller classical forms of this neuter predicate — /xaraiov n, xprj^a 
o-o4>6v — are also Avanting. Still we find n 'something (special),' 
ovSev 'nothing' i.e. 'nothing worth' used as neuter predicates to a 
masc. or fern, subject : G. G. 3 et Soxel tis eTva\ n p.i]8ev <iv (as in 

§31-2.] AGREEMENT. yy 

class. Greek ; beside this we have etvai ns A. 5. 36, cp. 8. 9 = ' a 
great man'). Further instances are ri 6 IleTpos eyevero (ti ei'77 Tavra), 
see § 50, 7; 1 C. 11. 5 (the woman who is unveiled) iv «rrt Kal to avro 
T V *£ v f yr ]f l * v V) Mt. 6. 25 =L. 12. 23 ■>/ i/'i'X?) 7rAetoi' ecrTt ttJs rpocpr/s : 
in general assertions of this kind pla kgu ^ avrrj, -n-Xemv would be 
impossible. But in particular statements the pronoun is brought 
into agreement with the noun: R. 11. 5 -rfe 17 Tvp6o-Xrj\pLs el prj — 
(German would use the neuter 'was'), E. 1. 18 tis ea-nv ■>) eXirls rrjs 
kA^o-€ws avTov, 1 C. 3. 17 (o vaos rov deov) otVtves eare vpels (but in 
1 C. 6. II ravrd [sc. KXeinat k.t.A.] Ttves ?}t£ = tolovtoi, which would 
not have been sufficiently clear, while ovtol would have been 
impossible ; Herrn. Sim. ix. 5. 3 ti Zo-tw [is the meaning of] ?} 
oLKoSo/x-i]). If the pronoun is the subject, in this case also there is 
agreement, which is contrary to German usage : Mt. 22. 38 avrij 
icrTLV 1) peydXi] evToXij, Ph. 1. 28 r^Tts (i.e. resistance, to dvTLKelo-Oat) 
ecrriv avrols evd'et^is ä7rwAeias, cp. E. 3. 13, A. 16. 12 QiXittttovs iJti<; 
e'cn-i 7roAts. But in assimilation of this sort Latin goes a step further 
than Greek: see 1 P. 2. 19 f. tovto x^P t? 5 el - iirocpepei tis — dAA' 
et — viropevelre, to€to x*P ts ^apd ^ew, where the Greek regards the 
two ideas of ' grace ' and ' endurance ' as too distinct to admit of 
being merged into one, while the Latin translation has haec est gratia 
(Buttmann, p. 112). In interpretations by means of a relative 
sentence (as in 1 C. 3. 17 oiVives quoted above) the prevalent form 
elsewhere for the relative is the neut. sing, (which in that passage 
would be intolerable : 6 ko-riv vpek), even though neither the 
explanatory word nor the word explained has this gender: Mt. 27. 
^^ T07rov Xeyopevov To Ay., 6 (6s A al.) eo~TLV Kpavlov töVos (the 
repetition of Aey6|U€i'os either before or after twos is rightly omitted 
by K ca D), Mc. 15. 2 2 To Ay. töVov, 6 eartv p.edepprjvevopevov up. r., 
3. 17 Boctv^pyes, 6 «ttiv viol ßpovrrjs, Jo. 1. 42 1 etc.; Mc. 12. 42 
A67TTa 8vO, 6 eCTTLV KOOpaVTJ/S ', Col. 3. 14 T?)v dydV^v, 6 (v.l. 6s, r/Tts) 
«rrtv crvvSecrpos rrjs TeAeiOT^Tos 2 (Barn. 15. 8 dpxv v ..., 6 ecrriv dXXov 
Kocrpov ap\r\v); cp. Mc. 15. 1 6 tt}s avXfjs, 6 ccttiv irpairüpiov; E. 6. 17 
t?)v pdyaipav - , 6 ecrriv prjpa deov ; in the Apocalypse alone is there 
assimilation of the relative to the subject or predic: 4. 5 XapnrdSes, 
d (v.l. at') eto-tv to -n-vevpara 5. 6, 8. This phrase 6 eon has become 
as much a stereotyped formula as the equivalent tout' eon (Toirreo-Ti) 
in Mt. 27. 46 1} At — tout' «tti 0ee pov k.t.A., H. 2. 14 tov to KpdVos 
c^ovTa rov Oavdrov, Tovrecm tov SidßoXov, 7. 5, 9. II etc. But all 
these instances represent not so much a classical as a Hellenistic 
usage. (Tt kern ravra is common to N.T. and classical Greek § 50, 
7). On Trpa>ry) Trdvrwv Mc. 12. 28 see § 36, 12; on want of agreement 
in the constructio ad sensum vide infra 4 ; on the construction 

1 Jo. 19. 17 tov X.€Y<)|J.evov Kpaviov tottov, 5 (al. 6s) \iyerax 'Eßpa'ürrl ToXyodä is 
badly corrupted; we should read with LX, vulg. al. Kp. r., 'E/3/». de V. 

2 Since this is a case not of interpretation but description, ös would be more 
correct, cp. Col. 3. 5 fty irXeove^lav, 77ns tarlv eiSwXoXarpta, where ö ecm ' that 
is to say ' would be more in place than in verse 14, cp. the v.l. in E. 5. 5. The 
reading o (BDEFG) for ö's in Col. 2. 10 is entirely wrong ; in 2. 17 (BFG) for 
ä is harsh. 

7 S AGREEMENT. [§ 31. 2-3. 

where the subject of the sentence is composed of several words, or 
in the case of an attribute to several nouns vide infra 5. 

3. Want of agreement in number ; neuter plurals with singular 
verb. Probably there is no more striking peculiarity in the whole 
of Greek syntax than the rule that where the subject is a neuter 
plural the verb still remains in the singular. This rule, which in 
Attic is never broken, is however not without exceptions in Homer 
and in the Hellenistic language, and modern Greek has gone back 
completely and exclusively to the use of the plural verb in this 
instance as in others. In the N.T. (as in the lxx.) there is great 
fluctuation, and very often this fluctuation extends to the readings 
of the MSS. in individual passages : while in the Shepherd of 
Hermas the plural is found in the majority of cases. Of neuter 
words which denote persons : tckvol is used with plural verb in 
Mt. 10. 21 (sing. BA)=Mc. 13. 12 (sing. B), but with sing, verb in 
1 Jo. 3. 10, R. 9. 8 : Wv-r] with plur. verb Mt. G. 32 (sing. EG al.), 
12. 21 O.T., 25. 32 (sing. AE al.), L. 12. 30 (sing. AD al.), Acts 4. 
25 O.T, 11. 1 (sing. D*), 13. 48, R. 2. 14 (sing. D C E), 15. 27, 1 C. 
10. 20 ? (om. Ttt Wvq BDEF al., sing. KL), G. 3. 8 O.T., 2 Tim. 4. 
17 (sing. KL), Ap. 11. 18 (sing. «*), 15. 4, 18. 3, 23, 21. 24, Clem. 
Cor. i. 59. 4 (with sing, verb all MSS. in R. 9. 30, E. 4. 17); but 
with Sai/ioi'ta the sing, verb preponderates, L. 4. 41 (plur. nC), 8. 
2, 30 (plur. CF, also D with another reading, ep. 31 f.), 35 (plur. k c ), 
38 (in verse 33 elo-rjXOoi' has overwhelming evidence, -ev SU), 10. 17: 
the plur. is found in Ja. 2. 19; wa'para uses both constructions, 
a plur. verb in Mc. 1. 27, 3. 11 (v.l. sing.), 5. 13 (sing. B), A. 8. 7 ? 
Ap. i. 5 ? 16. 14 (v.l. with sing, partially introduced), a sing, verb 
in L. 8. 2 KdTOLKeL, 10. 20 (v.l. SaijAouia), 1 C. 14. 32 (v.l. TrvevfJia). 
Other neuter words besides these appear with plural verb : Mt. 
6. 23 t<x Kpiva 7T(3s av^dvovinv (but with sing, verb in the corre- 
sponding words in L. 12. 37), Jo. I!'. 31 has first Iva prf fieivg t<x 
(Tto/xaTa, followed by 'iva Kareayiocni' olvtwv tu o-kcA?/, Jo. 1 0. 8 ovk 
iJKovcrav (-(rev L) avriov rix irpoßara. In the verses preceding the 
last passage quoted a sing, verb is used with irpnßara, ibid. 3 
aKovet, 4 aKoXovOei, with the additional words IWi otSao-iv r>/v «/küi?)v 
(ivtov (because o?oe would have been ambiguous) and further on 
another plural in verse 5; in the subsequent verses, 10 has e'xwo-i 
where irpößara must lie regarded as the subject, in 12 eo-rtv is read 
by nABLX, etViv by DT al., and so on with constant interchange 
up till 16 (in 27 and the following verse there are conflicting 
readings). On the whole, the singular verb certainly is more 
frequently used with words which bave not a personal meaning 
(the singular is not excluded even by the insertion of a numeral, 
eav yei'i]Tdi - 6Ka.Tov TTpößara Mt. 18. 12), and is uniformly employed 
with abstract words (exceptions are tu pi'pxara ravra with l(pävi)crav 
L. 24. 11, and perhaps epya with ßiWvTai [v.l. -cn-cu] 1 Tim. 5. 25) 
and with pronouns such as Tairra and <x (Ap. 1. 19 a ela-iv ko.1 a 
peWei yevecrOdi. ; Clem. Cor. i. 42. 2 lyevovTO dpcporepa, cp. 27. 6 
7ru'tu). In 1 C. 10. 11 there are two readings: Tarra 5e td-iküs 
{Tvi'ißaivtv and — TVTToi (Tvvkßaivov, cp. verse 6 TauTa St TV7TOL r]p.ü)v 

§3i.3-5.] AGREEMENT. y^ 

ZyevijOyo-av, the verb taking its number from the noun Avhich forms 
the predicate, as it does also in classical Greek as well as in Latin 
(Kühner, Gr. ii. 2 67). x 

4. The so-called constructio ad sensum is very widespread in Greek 
from early times, though without being subject to any rules , the 
same construction appears in the N.T. It affects both number and 
gender. The instances mainly consist of the collective words 
which embrace in a singular noun the idea of a plurality of 
persons : masculine words like ö^Aos, Aads, feminines like crrpaTta, 
oi/aa, neuters like TrXijßos, o-irepp.a (with plur. verb in Herrn. Yis. 
ii. 2. 2). Instances of this construction, where a masculine plural 
conforming to the sense only appears in a clause appended to the 
main clause, do not give serious offence even in English : e.g. 
1 C. 1 G. 15 oiSare t?)v oIkiclv 2xe</>ava, m — eVa^av tavrois (eVa^ev 
kavTi]v is unnatural), Jo. 6. 2 i]KoXov6ei o^Aos ttoXvs, 6Vt edewpow. 
The following are rather harsher constructions: L. 2. 13 7rA?}#os 
(TTpaTias ovpavtov ( = dyyeXwv), ali'ovvrwv rbv 6eov /cat Xeyovrujv, 
A. 21. 35 t'jKoXovOet, to 7rA7y#o? tov Xaov, Kpd^ovres Afpe avrov (/cpa^oi/ 
DHLP) cp. 3. 11. And this want of agreement in number is not 
excluded even where the singular and plural words are directly 
connected: A. G. 11 ;roAi's tc 6;>(Aos tüjv lepewv vtti'jkovov (-ev AE) rrj 
7rio"T€i, 25. 24 airav to 7tAt]Öos tcuv 'IovSaiwi' ev€TV)(ov (BH -ev) pot — , 
/?owvt£s k.t.A., Mt. 21.86 7rAeio-Tos o)(Aos eo-Tpwo-av, Jo. 7. 49 o o^Aos 
oBtos o p.i] yivaxTKuyv tov vo/xov kirdpaToi «tcrtv. The following also 
are closely allied to o^Aos etc.: to. Wv-q 'the heathen,' E. 4. 17 f. 
T<x Wvrj TrepnraTei — , eo-KOTwpei/01 k.t.A. (1 C. 12. 2 is not an instance 
of this), at €KK\r]<ricu G. 1. 22 f. (which is followed by /xöVov Se ukov- 
ovt€s rjcrav), and names of places : L. 10. 13 Ti'pw ko.1 StSwvt 
- Ka.61jp.evoi, though here the other reading -vai (DEG al.), since the 
towns are regarded as wholes (as in Mt. 11. 21 ff.), appears prefer- 
able. Cp. § 48, 5 (use of the personal pron. avrov and the relative). 

5. If the subject consists of several coordinate words connected by 
Kat, the common predicate must, according to German feeling, stand 
in the plural in conformity with the sense, and of course if one of the 
subject words is lyw, this plural predicate must be the plural of the 
1st person : L. 2. 48 6 irar^p o-ov Kayw ooWojpei'oi iforovpev ere, 
Jo. 10. 30, 1 C. 9. 6. An additional modifying word, referring to 
the subject, as 6Swwp.evoL in the passage quoted, will, if declinable, 
likewise fall into the plural, and into the masculine plural in a case 
where the subject consists of a combination of masc. and fem. words 
(Joseph and Mary in that passage). This is always the case if the 
predicate follows the subject ; on the other hand, if it precedes the 
subject, it is rather the custom for the verb to stand in the singular, 
and to correspond in form to the subject immediately following it : 
again, if the verb is interposed between the different subjects, it is 
made to correspond to the subject which has preceded it, and can 
only take the number of that subject. Instances of the singular 

1 On the stereotyped use of the sing, idov, !'5e, aye see § 33, 2 note. 

So AGREEMENT [§ 31. 5-6. 

verb occupying the first place : A. 11. 24 o-i»di)<rri o-b Kal 6 oIkos a-ov, 
where the first word is the main subject ' thou together with thy 
whole house,' similarly Jo. 2. 2 eKXi)di] 81 ko.1 'hjo-ovs xal ol pad^ral 
avTov, and, so far as the participle at the head of the sentence is 

concerned, A. 5. 29 oVok/jiÖcIs 8e Uerpos Kal ol diroo-ToXoi eiTrav (cp. 

verse 21) ; but the singular verb is also used where the subjects are 
placed on an equality: Jo. 18. 25 ijKoXovdei 8e t$ 'I. Si/iwv Ilerpos Kal 
aAAos /j.aOi)Ti'i<; (cp. 20. 3, A. 26. 30 ; so without exception where the 
subject words are not persons, as in Mt. 5. 18 6 ovpavos Kal ■>) yrf) ; 
L. 2. ^3 yv 8e 6 Traryp avTov ko.1 1) piJTi/p davpa^ovres, ]\lt. 1 7. 3 ilxpß-i) 
(tfBD : al. -ij(rav) — Mwvotjs Kai 'HAius o-vXXaXovvres. From the last 
two instances it follows that where the predicate is divided, that 
part of it which precedes the subject is in the singular, the part 
which follows it is in the plural (so in the passage A. 5. 29 quoted 
above). In the following instances there is a special reason for the 

plural verb : Mc. 10. 35 irpoo~!ropevovTai avTi» 'laKioßos Kal TcodV^s oi 

viol ZeßeSaiov (the pair of brothers who from the first were thought 
of together), Jo. 21. 2 fja-av öfiov -i/uov Uerpos ko.1 k.t.X., L. 23. 12 
eyevovTO <j>(\oi o re 'HpwSrjs kui o IIiAaTos, A. 5. 24 o>s 8e f/Koiwai' — ö 
T€ orpaT^yos - koI ol dp^iepeis (the plural has already been used 
before of the same persons in verse 21 ; cp. 1. 13, 4. 27). Accord- 
ingly in default of any reason of this kind, where the readings differ, 
the singular appears to deserve the preference, as in L. 8. . 1 9, 
A. 17. 14 ; we even have aKovo-as 81 Bapvdßas Kal Ila?Aos the reading 
of D in Acts 14. 14, cp. 13. 46 D. Instances of interposition of the 
predicate are L. 8. 2 2 ciutos dveßrj els ttXolov Kal ol p.aB. ai'Tov, 
Jo. 4. 36 etc. — For adjectives and participles qualifying several 
words cp. L. 10. 1 eis irdcrav ttoXiv Kal to7tov, 1 Th. 5. 23, on the 
Other hand 8wpa Kal dvo-lai /z?) 8vvdpevai H. 9. 9 (ibid. 3. 6 ßeßaiav is 
an interpolation from verse 14). — The singular verb is regularly 
used, if the two subjects instead of being connected by Kal are 
separated by r/ : Mt. 5. 18 iwra ev 1) /ua Kepaia ov p.->] irapeXOy, 12. 25, 
18. 8, E. 5. 5 (especially if the verb precedes as in 1 C. 14. 24); 
Gr. 1. 8 edv ypels 7} ayyeAos e£ ovpavov evayyeXifrtyrau. (it would be 
impossible to include the two subjects in -£iopedu). An exception is 
Ja. 2. 15 edv d8e\(f>os 1) d8eX(f>y yvpvol im-dp^tao-iv (occasioned by the 
adjective, the singular of which, yvp.v6s or yvp.vy, would have been 

6. Solecisms (in the Apocalypse). In distinction from all other 
New Testament writings, and in particular from those of the Apostle 
St. John, the Apocalypse exhibits a multitude of the most remark- 
able solecisms, which depend in the main upon the neglect of the 
laws of agreement. Thus we have in 1. 5 diro 'hjo-ov Xp., 6 fxdp-rvs ö 

irurrds, o 7T/)ojtotokos Ttav vCKptüV Kal 6 äp^wv TttfV pucriAeoJi' tv/s V^Sj to» 

dya7rwvT\.i)p.d>; k.t.X. (the datives on account of avT<J3 in verse 6 accord- 
ing to Winer), 11. 4 ovtoi elmv al 8vo eXaiai Kal at 8vo Xv\viai al 
evwTTiov tou Kvpiov Trjs yr\s IfTTWTts (N*ABC ; eo-Twrrai N CC P), 12. 5 Kal 
eT6K€i' vibv dpcrtv (AP ; dppeva «B, dpo-eva P), os peXXei k.t.X. (the cor- 
rection -eva is no improvement; a better alteration would be to strike 
Out vlov), 14. 19 eßaXev eis ~rijv Xtjvuv toG 8vpov tov Oeov rbv \Ltyav (t?)i' 

§31.6.] AGREEMENT. 8 1 

peyaAr/v «). Cp. 2. 20 (nom. in apposition with ace), 3. 12 (nom. 
for gen.), 6. 1 (the same, as a v.l.), 7. 4 (nom. for ace), 8. 9 (for gen.), 
9. 14 (for dat.), 14. 12 (for gen., which N reads), 20. 2 (for ace): 7. 9 
(o\ Aos . . . 4o-twt€s . . . 7rept/3e/3A?/pei'ous • the ace is dependent on elSov 
which stands at the beginning of the verse, the nom. on kou ISov 
which follows e?oW, Winer), 5. 1 if. (AeyovTes following </)wv?)v ayyeAwv 
and rjv 6 dpidpbs avrwv puptaSes k.t.A.; similar anacolutha with Xeywv 
or -orres in 4. 1, 11. 15, 14. 7: and with v.l. 11. 1, 19. 6), 21. 9 with 
v.l. It has even been fixed as a rule for this writer that an apposi- 
tional phrase following a noun in any case stands in the nominative, 
although scribes have shown a strong inclination to correct these sole- 
cisms. 1 The isolated cases of anacoluthon of this kind which appear in 
other writings of the N.T. should be regarded either as excusable or as 
due to a corrupt text. Jo. 1. 14 6 Aoyos crap£ eyeveTo — ko.1 Weacrdpeda 
T?yv 86£av avrov — ir\r\pt]s (-pi] D) ^dptros xal dXrjdetas. In this passage 
the word in question is one which to a remarkably great extent, both 
in the N.T. and also in papyrus documents, appears as indeclinable : 
thus A. 6. 5 dvSpa TrXijprjS (-p?; BC L ') 7rtcrTews, 3 TrXvpeis (-p^s AEHP) 
wvevparos, 19. 28 yevopevot 7rA?/pets (-p?s AEL) dvp.ov, Me 8. 1 9 
Kocpivovs 7rA?/pets (-p?/s AFGM) KXacrpdriov, 2 Jo. 8 pucrduv irXrjprj 
(-p?ys L) ; the only passages where it is declined in all MSS. (no 
genitive following it) are Mt. 14. 20, 15. 37 («s), Me 4. 28 a v.l. 
(-pr/), 6. 43 a V.l. (-pet?); cp. Papyr. Berol. no. 13. 8 aVep dTrko-yaptv 
7rA?;p?7s, 81. 27 as TrapaSuxro) ■n-X^p^, 270. 9, 373. 1 3, 21 ; Grenfell- 
Hunt, Pap. ii., p. 107 Sid to ^-A?;p^[5 ajirröv aVeo-Y^Kevai, 118 (perhaps 
also 117, where irX-qpr] is given at the end of a line). 2 — In Philipp. 2. 1 
et Tis TrapaxXrio-is — , etTi Trapafivdcov—, et Tts Koiv<avla — , eins cnrXayyya 
koX otKTtpp.01, et Tt ('if it avails ought,' cp. § 31, 2) ought to be, as it 
seems, written throughout. — Ja. 3. 8 rrjv yXwacrav ouSets Svvarai 
Sapdcrat,, aKaTd<r\€Tov ko.kov, fi.€<rT^| lov (Tisch, puts a colon after Sap., 
making the following clause independent, sc. «ttiv). — L. 24. 47 
Ki-jpvydTjvcu peTavotav — ap^apevoi (-evwv D correctly, -evov AC 3 FH al.) 
and A. 10. 37 otoVre to yevopevov pry pa ko.6' oXrjs Trjs 'IovSatas, 
äp^apevos aVb ttjs TaAtA. (ap£. yap AD, which is no improvement ; 
-evov correctly LP : but the whole clause ap£. a. t. T. is perhaps 
taken from L. 23. 5). For other instances cp. § 81. 

1 Nestle, Piniol. Sacra 7, Einführung in das Griech. N.T. 90 f. Akin to this is 
what may be called the indeclinable use of Xtyuv or \eyoi>Tes in the lxx. = "ibto : 
Gen. 15. 1, 22. 30, 38. 13, 45. 16 etc. , Winer. On the practice of many translators 
of putting words in apposition with any of the oblique cases in the nominative, 
see Nestle, Philol. Sacra 7. (Nestle also conjectures in Ap. 1. 4 Tn>evp.&Twi> to. 
evwirtov rod dpovov in place of the readings twv, Sl, a eariv or eiciv, just as in 5. 13 
K alone has preserved the true reading to instead of 8 or 6 ecrnv. In 2. 13 
he reads iv reus ijfxepais 'Aeri'ira 6 /xaprvs /xou ... 6's. ) 

2 " IlXriptjs is also used indeclinably in the lxx., e.g. Num. 7. 13 F, 19 **> 
20 BN*, Job 21. 24 all mss., Sir. 19. 23 B*. Cp. the phrase 'eine Arbeit voller 
Fehler.'" (E. Nestle.) 

GENDER AND NUMBER. [§ 32. 1-3. 



1. The neuter of the adjective or participle is occasionally used 
with reference to persons, not only in phrases like to yewui/xevov 
L. 1. 35 'that which is to be born,' cp. to tckvov, but also as in 
Jo. 17. 2 — irdo-rjs o-api<6<i, tva iräv 8 SeSwKas cu'tw, Siocrei avrofs, where 
men are first comprised under the collective name o-dpg, then under 
the neuter 77-av, and finally (in uvtois) the usual mode of designation 
appears. Cp. Jo. 6. 3 7 (a similar instance), 1 Jo. 5. 4 (ttolv to ; 77-as 

has been previously used in verse 1); further H. 7. 7 to eXarrov 
v—b toG KpetTToi/os tvXoyeiTcu, for 6 eActTTwv or 01 eAaTToves, in order 
to represent the thought in a more abstract and so in a more general 
form. A similar collective use of the neut. sing, appears in classical 
Greek (Kühner ii. 2 13). Elsewhere the neut. plur. is used: 

1 C. 1. 27 f. Ta piopd tov Ko<TfjLOi> — tu dcrdevrj r. k. — to. lo~\vpd, where 
the sing, would have been wrong because of the idea of unity which 
it would imply — since the fjuopol etc. do not form a definite section — 
and moreover with the masculine the emphasis would not have lain 
so strongly upon the abstract quality of foolishness etc. Cp. further 
G. 3. 22 to. irdvTa, which is not so strong as tous 77-avTas, which might 
also have stood, irdvra Jo. 12. 32 «*D. (In classical Greek to. 
(/>ei'yovTa Xenoph. Anab. 7, 3. II ap. Winer ; ttovto. to. crvpßeßiacrpeva 
Dem. 8. 41.) 

2. The feminine appears to stand in place of the neuter, in 
consequence of a literal rendering from the Hebrew, in the O.T. 
quotation Mt. 21. 42 = Mc. 12. 11 irapd Kvpiov iyevero aHrr\ Kai «rriv 
davpaaTi], from Ps. 118. 23 = Hebr. rfx* 'this.' 

3. The so-called collective use of the masc. sing, (on the neuter 
sing, vide supra 1) is found in R. 3. 1 ri to irepicrcruv tov 'lovSaiov; 
i.e. ' What advantage has the Jew as Jew V (which every individual 
Jew has ipso facto); cp. 2. 17-29, where the individual has already 
been selected as the representative of the community. We have 
just the same use with names of nations and rank, ' the soldier,' ' the 
Jew'; Latin miles, Romanus etc.; in classical Greek it is less common 
(Thucyd. 6. 78 tov HvpaKoo-iov, tw 'Adijvauo). Other instances are 
Mt. 12. 35 6 dya$b$ dv6p(OTro<;, R. 13. 8 to dyaduv epyov, 1 P. 4. 18 
6 Si'kcuos — 6 do-e/3?;s, R. 14. I tov do-devovvra. But in Ja. 2. 6 tov 
7ttcüx<)v refers to the example of verse 2 : also in 5. 6 a single 
instance is thought of in tov 6Ykcuov, while 1 C. 6. 5 SiaKpivai dva. 
fxkcrov tou d8eXcj)ov ou'tou is an incorrect expression, which is easily 
intelligible (since üva pka-ov of course presupposes more persons 
than one), for tou d8. a. koi tov hepov d8e\(f>ov (on account of verse 1 
ToA/jxi Tis . . . KpLvecrdai, where the language refers primarily to the 
plaintiff). Cp. lxx. Gen. 23. 15, Winer § 27, 1. 

§ 22. 4-5.] GENDER AND NUMBER. 83 

4. Of another character is the use of the sing, of objects, which 
belong individually to several persons, where several persons are 
spoken of, as we also say ' they shook their heads ' [die Köpfe] or 
'they shook their head' [den Kopf], i.e. everyone his own head, 
where the insertion of ' everyone ' would be quite superfluous. In 
Greek, including N.T. Greek, the plural is usual in such cases ; but 
deviations from this are permitted in classical as in N.T. Greek : 
A. 25. 24 iW ^vpi)(ritiVTai T-qv Ke<f>aXrjv (Vulg. capita), L. 1. 66 edevro 
TravTes kv Ty nap8ta (DL rats KapSiais) cu'twv, Mc. 8. 17 7re7ru)pu)fikvr]v 
c'X eT€ rrjv KapBtav vp,wv, E. 6. 14 -irepifjao-aptvoi rrjv 60-cpvv vp.wv, 
Ap. 6. 1 1 (869r] aureus 0-1-oAr) XevKij (but ko-O-iß in L. 24. 4 is collective 
' raiment,' as is usual with this word [ko-6i)creo-iv ACL al.]). The 
sing, is always used in the Hebraic periphrastic expressions dnb 
7rpoo"W7rov rwv Trarepwv A. 7. 45, KCiTa irpoo-wirov TrdvTwv L. 2. 31, 81a 
o-TOyuaros irdvTwv A. 3. 18 (21); also 8ta v."/ 3 »? is used with a plural 
word as in A. 2. 23, but here we have also the conceivable use of 8id 
Ttov xeipwv with a singular; e/c rfjs %• o.vtwv Jo. 10. 39. 

5. The plural is used with reference to a single person by a 
generalising mode of expression in Mt. 2. 20 redv^Kao-iv ol ^toijvtcs 
tt)v \pvyj)v tov ttollSiov, namely Herod (verse 19); the plural implies 
the thought, there is nothing more to fear, since with Herod's death 
all are dead who etc. More peculiar is the use of the plural in the 
case of a certain group of substantives. This is partly due to the 
influence of Hebrew; thus atdives is used in H. 1. 2, 11. 3, 1 Tim. 1. 
i7(?) for 'the world,' in L. 1. ^^ and often for 'eternity' (esp. in 

the phrase ets tovs aiwvas ray alwvuv G. 1. 5 etc.) = Q^yli? : 
ovpavoi = 0^123, but in most writers this plural is only used of 
heaven in the figurative sense as the seat of God (beside the sing, 
which is used in the same sense), whereas in the literal sense of 
the word the sing, prevails, except where, in accordance with the 
Jewish conception, several heavens are distinguished (E. 4. 10 
virepdvoi ttolvtuv twv ovp., cp. 1. 10, Col. 1. 16, 20, H. 1. 10 O.T., 

4. 14, 7. 26, 2 P. 3. 5, 7, 10, 12, 13 ; also probably at <Wa/z«s t&v 
ovpavuv Mt. 24. 29 = Mc. 13. 25 = Lc. 21. 26). Thus we always 
have rj ßacriXeia rtov ovpavwv Mt. 3. 2 etc., o Trar-qp vpwv 6 kv (to?s) 
ovp. 5. 16 etc.; similarly in Luke 10. 20 rd 6v6p.a.Ta vpwv eyyeypaTrrat 
kv Tots ovp. (tw ovpavw D), 12. 23 6r)0-o.vpbv kv tois ovp., A. 2. 34, 
7. 56; in Paul 2 C. 5. 1, E. 3. 15, 6. 9 (« ovpavy), Ph. 3. 20, Col. 1. 

5, 4. I (ovpavw N*ABC), 1 Th. 1. 10; 1 P. 1. 4 (oipavw **) ; (John 
never has the plural; also in the Apoc. it only occurs in 12. 12); 
in Mt. the passage 24. 31 aV aKpwv ovpavwv «os aKpwv cnjTwv runs 
counter to the rule given above (Mc. 13. 27 has the sing, here), but 
not 3. 16 f., cp. Mc. 1. IO f. eTSev crxifouei'ovs tovs ovpavovs - , /ecu 
(fitDvrj ex twv ovpavwv (L. 3. 21 f. has the sing., but cp. A. 7. 56). 
Further oiKTipp.oi= Ü^n*^ in Paul, E. 12. 1 etc.; the sing, only occurs 
in Col. 3. 12 (plur. K) ; cp. infra 6. The following plurals agree 
with the classical use: avaToAou', east and west Mt. 2. 1, 8. n 
etc., but only in the formula aVb (ea>s) dvaroXwv, 8vo-pwv, on the other 

8 4 GENDER AND NUMBER— CASES. [§ 32. 5-6. § 33. 

hand we have kv tj; dvaroXy Mt. 2. 2, 9; aVo dvaTokrjs (B -Cjv) is also 
found beside cnro 8vcrp.wv Ap. 21. 13, d. oVutoAt^s (A -uf) rjkiov 7. 2, 
16. 12 (Swrpy never occurs, as in class. Greek is practically 
the only form). Always (k Bestow, e£ dpio-rtpwv or ev'wvt'/xwv; tv tois 
Se£to?s Mc. 16. 5, et's ra Öe^ta (jLtpt] Jo. 21. 6; beside these we have 
ev 8«£ta K. 8. 34, E. 1. 20 etc., sc. x €l P' (classical use is similar). 
Cp. T(l jxiprj 'the region' Mt. 2. 22 etc., £7re/<€iva beyond A. 7. 43 
(a wrong reading from the lxx.; it should be «rt to. p-kpif). Td 
dyia, tu. üyta rwv ayiuiv parts of the temple (or tabernacle) H. 9. 
2 f. are used as well as to äyiov in verse 1 (rot dyta t. dyt'wv in lxx. 

1 Kings 8. 6). LTi'Aat (class.) is only so used in rrvXat, "AiSov Mt. 
16. 18 (lxx. Sap. Sal. 16. 23; class.), elsewhere the sing, is used 
for one gate ; similarly 8vpa for one door (class, often Ovpai), cp. 
at dvpat, iräo-ai A. 16. 26, so that Jo. 20. 19 f. OvpQv, and perhaps 
also A. 5. 19, 23, 21. 30 are to be understood of several doors ; the 
plural is used in the expression «Vi Ovpais Mt. 24. ^^, Mc. 13. 29, 
cp. Ja. 5. 9 7rpb twv dvpwv figuratively, irpu 1-775 dvpas A. 12. 6 
literally (but ibid. 5. 23 7rpb twv dvpQv in a similar connection). 
Kd/\.7roi (class.) is used in L. 16. 23 ev roh ko/Wois (tw koAtt« D) 
uvtov (A/ipau/x), the sing, in verse 22. ('I/xdna means 'clothes' 
including lp.dri.ov and x lt ^ v > but is used inaccurately = i/xärtov in 
Jo. 13. 4, 19. 23, also probably in A. 18. 6). The use of dpyvpia 
for 'pieces of money' Mt. 26. 15 is not usual in classical Greek; 
oleoma 'wages' L. 3. 14 etc. is Hellenistic. Attiara (in classical 
poets) Ap. 18. 24 B (but nACP read afyta) is blood shed by several 
martyrs; Jo. 1. 13 ovk <e£ alfidrtav is used of the substance from 
which a man is begotten (Eurip. Ion 693, Winer). The names of 
feasts are as in classical Greek (Atovuo-ta, LTavao/yvata) in the plural : 
eyKaiVia, yevio-ia (to, u^v/xa in Mc. 14. I to 7rdo-\a ko.1 to. d^vjia, but 
I) omits koX ra d£. ; strictly rj koprr) tw d£vp,wv or at i)p.epai t. d£. ); 
also yd/jioi 'a marriage-feast ' Mt. 22. 2, Lc. 12. $6 etc. (classical): 
but the sing, is used in Mt. 22. 8 etc. Aia0)J#cai E. 2. ic, K. 9. 4 
nCK (■>} Biadi'jKTf} BDE al., as always elsewhere ; cp. the classical 

6. The plural of abstract expressions is found in Greek in a manner 
that appears strange to us, not only in poets, but also not infre- 
quently in an elevated prose style, being used to indicate the 
individual concrete manifestations of the abstract quality. In the 
N.T. the epistolary style occasionally presents a similar usage : 

2 C. 12. 10 «pis (v.l. epet?, cp. § 8, 3), ^Aos (v.l. ^tjXol), 6vp.oi, kpideiat, 
KttTaAaAiat, \f/idvpicrp.oi, (fnxruocreis, aKaTao-Tacrtai cp. G. 5. 20, Ta? 
Tropveias 1 C 7. 2, TJTTOKptcreis, </>öovous, KaTaAaAids 1 P. 2. I cp. 4. 3, 
7rpoo-(ij7roA»;Mi/'tats Ja. 2. 1, alo-\vva<s Jd. 1 3 ; also 6WaTois 'mortal 
dangers' 2 C. 11. 23 ( Herrn. Sim. vi. 5. 3). 


1. The nominative as the case of the name (orouao-Ti/o; = nomina- 
tivus) appears to stand occasionally, where a proper name is 
introduced, without regard to the construction, in place of the case 


which is strictly required. Thus Jo. 13. 13 (fxoveire p.e 6 8t8do-KaXos 
Kai Kvpios, but here the nom. has mainly a vocative character, 
vide inf. 4 : Ap. 9. 1 1 ovofia ex €t (6V. exei is omitted by the 
Latin Vulgate and may be supplied from the preceding words) 
AttoAAiW. Cp. Xenoph. Oecon. 6. 14 Tors e^ovras to crep.vbv ovofia 
TovTo to kclXos re Ka.ya.66s (other instances in Lobeek, Phryn. 517. 1). 
But elsewhere the name is regularly assimilated to the case : Mt. 
1. 21, 25 KccAecreis to ovojia avTOV 'Itjo-oOv, Mc. 3. 16 iirWrjKev 6vop.a 
tw "Zifuovi Uerpov (only A and the Latin versions have IleTpos) : and 
without exception in the phrase ' by name ' e.g. A. 27. 1 
iKarovrapx}] ovopaTL 'IovAtw : cp. infra 2. It is accordingly incredible 
that the Mount of Olives should be translated by 6 'EAcuaiv and 
that this word should be used as indeclinable in L. 19. 29, 21. 37 
o/oos (ace.) to kol Aoi'/zevov eAcuwv, but we must write kXaiwu (to opos 
tc5v kX. in L. 19, 37 etc.), and in the single passage where we dis- 
tinctly have the other form, A. 1. 12 (opovs tov KaXovpkvov) kXamvos 
we must correct the text to «Acuuiv (as also in Joseph. Ant. Jud. 
7, 9. 2), see § 10, 5. 

2. The nominative occasionally stands in a parenthesis inter- 
rupting the construction: thus Jo. 1. 6 kykrero dv6pu>iros - , 'Iwav^s 
6Vo/za aiTw (fjv is read before ov. by n*D*), cp. 3. 1 (where s* has 
Niko'S?//^? oYo/moiti ; there is a more detailed expression introduced 
by i)v 81 in 18. 10; cp. also Ap. 6. 8, 8. 11, 9. n; a similar classical 
use, § 30, 2) ; for this elsewhere with a more normal adjustment to 
the construction <S ovopa- (often in La, but in Acts only at 13. 6 ; 
ov to ov. with v.l. w 6v. Mc. 14. 32) or 6v6p.o.rt (Luke, Gospel and 
Acts) is used. The instances in statements of time are more 
Striking : L. 9. 28 8e p-era. Tors Adyoi'S tovtovs, wcrei f/pepai 
oktcu, /cat ~apaXaßwv k.t.X., Mt. 15. 32 6V1 ij8t] rjpepai (i)pepas a) 
Tpds Tpocrp.kvovo-iv poi. So also we may accordingly interpret A. 
5. 7 eykvero 8e, w? wpiov rpiwv SidcrTrjpa, /cat tj ywij k.t.X., and perhaps 
too (as Bengel and Winer) L. 13. 16 t)v e'S^crev 6 SaTavas, l8ox> 8kKa 

K'ai OKTOi €TTj.^ 

3. The double nominative (nom. of the subject and nom. of the 
predicate) is found in the N.T. as in Attic, except that occasionally 
in place of the second nominative els with the accusative is used 
after a Hebrew model (as it is also used instead of the second 
accusative with corresponding active verbs, § 34, 5). This con- 
struction appears with efvat (more precisely with the fut., 
which has a certain relation to ylvopat) and yiveo-dat, but chiefly in 
quotations : ecrovrai els crdpKa p.iav Mt. 19. 5 O.T. = Hebr. ,-, kyevijdfj 
els Ke<f>aXr)v yiuvlas 21. 42 O.T., earai Ta o-/coAtd eis ev6e<-as L. 3. 5 
O.T., 2 C. 6. 18 O.T. ; seldom except in quotations, as in L. 13. 19 
kykveTO els (om. ei's D) 8kv8pov, Jo. 16. 20 r/ A1V77 v/xwv els x a P av 

1 The use of the nom. with ISov, t8e (tSe 6 diivbs rod deov Jo. 1. 29 etc.) can 
only appear irregular, if one recalls the original meaning of the words. 
Already in Attic writers Idov (with this accent) has become a particle = ecce, 
and I5e at any rate has become stereotyped like aye and (pipe, so that it is joined 
with a plural word (Mt. 26. 65 etc.; aye oi \eyovres Ja. 4. 13, cp. 5. I). 


yein'/criTcu ( = /xeTuirTpou/jv/treTat, with which the use of eis is not 
remarkable), Ap. 8. n (with 16, 19 e'yeVero et's rpia p.epi) cp. otatpeiv 
eis : with 1 Th. 3. 5 eis Kevbv yev^rai 6 köVos vy/xwv cp. the Attic et? 
K-e/)Sos rt Spav). The combination Aoyt£ecröou (passive) eis is also 
not Attic, being taken from lxx. Gen. 15 6 eXoylo-di] avrw et's 
&iKaio(Tvvi)v ; in addition to its use in that quotation we have et's 
ovokv Xoyia-Oijvai A. 19. 27 (the same combination in Is. 40 17), 
Ta T€Kva Aoyi'£eT(u et's cnrepp-a R. 9. 8, cp. 2. 26 (/or nothing, for a 
seed ; cp. class. ovolv thai, to p,y]8ev emu) ; from this use comes the 
phrase ep.ol et's eAa^io-j-ov e'ort 1 C 4. 3. 

4. The language has created a special case for address, namely 
the vocative ; this is limited, it is true, to the singular, and even 
there is not in all cases distinguished in form from the nominative. 
This case appears also in the N.T. (d8eXcpe L. 6. 42, irdrep Mt. 6. 9), 
but generally without the accompaniment which it usually has in 
Attic, namely the interjection w. In most cases where this <L is 
found in the N.T. it expresses emotion: Mt. 15. 28 w (om. D) 
yvvat, /xeyaAi; <rov ■>) ttiVtis (yvvai in L. 22. 57, Jo. 2. 4, 4. 21 etc.), 
17. 17 ( = Mc. 9. 19, L. 9. 41) w yeved caria-ros (on the nom. vide 
infra), L. 24. 25, A. 13. 10 a> irXijprjs (cp. inf.) k.t.A. (R. 11. 33 w 
ßdOos ttXovtov is not an address, but an exclamation, for which 
purpose u> [in this case also written di] is likewise used in Attic), 
G. 3. 1, 1 Tim. 6. 20. With a less degree of emotion : <5 dvOpwire 
R 2. 1, 3, 9. 20, Ja. 2. 20 (avOpiowe without S in L. 12. 14, 22. 58, 
60) ; it is found without any sense of emotion in the Attic manner 
only in the Acts : & 6eo</>tÄe 1. 1 (in L. 1. 3 K<paTtare Oeoc^tAe, as 
the author of the work 7rept vxpovs has the address II.oa-Tovp.Le 
(fjikrare ; on the other hand Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the work 
7rept Twv dp\. prjTopmv has (5 Kpurio-re 'Ap.pale , in any case 0eo<£iAe 
without either St or «pano-re would be much too bald), 18. 14 w 
(ai'Spes) 'lovSaLot, (Gallio is speaking), 27. 21 & ävSpes (while avSpes 
dSeA</)ot, avSpes 'Adyvaioi etc. are used even in this book without <3, 
and even the simple üvSpes 7. 26, 14. 15 etc., 27. 10, 25), tu ßao-i\ev 
according to the witnesses supporting the ß text in A. 26. 13 (7).— 
From the earliest times (the practice is as old as Homer) the 
nominative has a tendency to usurp the place of the vocative. 
In the N.T. this occurs in two instances •. on the one hand, with 
adjectives standing without a substantive or with a substantive 
whose vocative is not distinguishable from the nomin. : Mt. 17. 17, 
Mc. 9. 19, L. 9. 41 w yevea. dirio-ros (but D in Mc. and Lc. has 
aTrio-Te), A. 13. 10 w 7rA?;p?;s (with which may be compared S> Swrux'fc 
in Menander); d^pmv L. 12. 20 (a variant -ov has little support), 
1 C. 15. 36 (ditto) ; l — on the other hand, where the article is 
introduced, which must naturally be followed by the nominative. 
The latter use of the nom. for voc. is also found already in Attic, 
e.g. Aristoph. Acham. 242 irpoW et's to irpoo-dev oXiyov ■>) Kavrj<$>6po<; y 
i.e. you (who are) the basket bearer, Ran. 521 6 7rats (you there, 

1 Even iraTTip is read by BD in Jo. 17. 21, and by AB in verses 24, 25, 
evydrrjp AB J D etc. Jo. 12. 15 O.T., L. 8. 48 BKL, Mt. 9. 22 DGL, Mc. 5. 34 BD. 

§ 33- 4 - § 34- 1] NOMINA T1VE AND VOCA T/VE. 87 

the lad I mean) aKoXovda ; in prose o~v 6 Trpeo-ßvraros, & avSpes 01 
irapovres, 01 01/cerai, Hpo^eve Kai ol äAAot ol 7rapovT€S (Xen. Anab. i. 
5. 16), and esp. with participles, one half of which do not form a 
vocative at all. 1 And so in the N.T. we have L. 8. 54 ■>} 7rou$ 
iyelpov, Mc. 5. 41, 9. 25, L. 12. 32 pvq cf>oßov, to puKpbv ttoi/xviov, 
11. 39 ii/Aei? 01 «JPapio-atoi, 2 R. 14. 4 au... 6 Kpivwv, Col. 3. 8 ff. at 
yvvacKes — ol avSpes - to. tckvo etc. = tyxeis p*v at yw. — lyxets Se 01 
avS^oes, Ap. 18. 20 ovpavl /cat ot aytot k.t.A. 3 In all these instances 
we have not so much a simple address as a more definite indication 
of the person addressed. But the N.T. (and the lxx.) have extended 
this usage still further ; in particular (S>) 6ee is not common (only 
in Mt. 27. 46 in a translation ; also rare in LXX.), the phrase 6 Öeös 
being used instead, L. 18. 11, H. 1. 8 O.T., 10. 7 O.T. etc., Kvpie 6 
8(6s Ap. 15. 3, and so also 6 warr/p Mt. 11. 26, R. 8. 15, 6 cWttotj/s 
Ap. 6. 10, 6 Kvptos pov Kau 6 6e6<s pov Jo. 20. 28 (o SiSacrKaAos Kai 
6 Kvpios 13. 13, vide supra 1); further 6 ßao-iXevs Ap. 15. 3, Mt. 
27. 29 (BD al. ßao-iXed), Mc. 15. 18 (here «BD al. ßaaiXev), Jo. 19. 3 
(ßacrtAev n), since this /3ao\ rav TovSatW is not a correct title, but 
a special designation, whereas the mode of addressing king Agrippa 
in A. 2G. 7 etc. is and must be ßao-iXtv. 


1. The use of the accusative as the complement of transitive 
verbs, which is the most ordinary function of this case, in the 
N.T. gives occasion only for a few special remarks, since in the 
first place transitives and intransitives are not so sharply distin- 
guished in N.T. Greek as in older Greek, and again other cases 
besides the accusative offer rival claims to be used as the comple- 
ment of the verb. The following verbs occasionally appear as 
transitives. M«v«iv 'to await,' A. 20. 5, 23 (virop-kveiv 1 C. 13. 7 etc., 
also in the sense of 'to await the help of God,' Clem. Cor. i. 34. 8, a 
quotation, for which lxx. uses the dat.; -n-epip^kveiv A. 1. 4, avap.kvf.iv 
1 Th. 1. 10). Qeiyew 'to avoid' (opposed to Siwkclv 'to strive after' 
anything), 1 C. 6. 18, 1 Tim. 6. 11, 2 Tim. 2. 22 (with Hebraic con- 
struction <p. aVb in the same sense 1 C. 10. 14) ; 'to flee before,' 'to 
escape,' only in H. 11. 34, ecfmyov ^a^ai^s as in class. 
Greek, elsewhere c/>. oVo as in Mt. 3. 7 <f>vydv aVb -nys fieXXovo-qs 
opyrjs (which in class. Greek is only used of places, favymv onrb rrj<s 
^KvXXrjs Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 31, cp. Herrn. Mand. xi. 14 <£ei'-yei aV 
avrov 'from him'); eKfavyeiv trans, in L. 21. 36 etc.; aTro<p. 2 P. 2. 20 
(ibid 1. 4 with genit. 1 see § 36, 9). <t>«r0ai 'to shun,' trans, as 
in classical Greek, A. 21. 25 etc., as well as with onrb L. 12. 15 

1 Krüger, Gramm. § 45, 2. Kühner, Gr. ii. 2 41 ff. 

2 So also L. 6. 25 oval ii/uv, ol ifx.weTrXrjo'fj.evoi, is regular, since ol £/ is equi- 
valent to a vocative. 

3 Without the article we have A. 7. 42 O.T. olkos 'lo-parfK = (vfieh) ö oIk. 'I. 
(see on the omission of the article § 46, 9). 

88 ACCUSATIVE. [§34-1. 

(Xenoph. Cyr. Ü. 3. 9), cp. (pvXdrreiv eavruv äiru 1 Jo. 5. 2 1. 1 4>oßcio-0ai 
'to fear,' usually transitive, takes cbrd after Hebrew usage in Mt. 10. 
2S. Qapptiv is only intrans. (in classical Greek also trans.). 
Oavfid^tv, usually intrans., is trans, in L. 7. 9 Idav/xaa-ev avrov (om. 
avr. D), A. 7. 3 1 to öpa/ia (om. to op. A). Jd. 1 6 . Alcrxvv€o-0ai. is 
intrans. (with dno in 1 Jo. 2. 28), but erraLo-yyv. is transitive, cp. 
Ivrpkirecrdai infra 2. 'E\«eiv (olKTCptiv R. 9. 15 O.T.) trans. KXauiv 
mostly intrans., trans, in Mt. 2. 18 O.T. (lxx. is different), L. 23. 
28 according to D (in the other mss. it takes knl with accus.). 
IIev9€iv is trans, only in 2 C. 12. 21 (and in L. 23. 28 according to 
D). KdirTco-Gox 'to bewail' is trans, in L. 8. 52 (class.), and takes 
ewi with ace. in Ap. 1. 7, 18. 9. EvSoKtiv 'to take pleasure in' is 
trans, only in Mt. 12. 18 O.T. in «*B (al. as, h), H. 10. 6, 8 O.T. 
(the lxx. here has ?/#eA?/o-as, elsewhere however it uses ev8. transi- 
tively e.g. Ps. 51. 18). ('Airopeio-BaC n occurs in A. 25. 20 nABHP, 
CEL insert els ; nowhere else in the N.T. is the accus, found after 
dir. or 8ia7r. [occasionally in classical Greek after cbr.], which take ev 
or rrepl, both of which constructions occur in Herrn. Sim. viii. 3. 1 ). 
Kauxäo-0ai ' to boast,' mainly intrans., is trans, in 2 C. 9. 2, 11. 30 
(with ace. of the thing). B\ao-<|>n|A€iv is often transitive (a late use, not 
Attic), et's nva the Attic construction is found in Mc. 3. 29 (om. els 
D), L. 12. io. 2 (Yßplfav is only used transitively.) '0|j.vi5vcu is no 
longer used with accusative of that by which one swears, except in 
Ja. 5. 12; elsewhere it takes eV (et's) = Hebr. ZL Mt. 5. 34 etc., or (as 
is found as early as class. Greek) kutu tlvos H. 6. 13, 16; but 
opKifav rivd (evopK.) still keeps this accus. Mc. 5. 7, A. 19. 13, 1 Th. 
5. 27 (e£opKi(i» [D 6/ofc.] o-e Kara with genit. Mt. 26. 63, Herrn. Sim. 
ix. 10. 5). 0pia|x߀v6iv 'to triumph ' is used transitively = 'to lead in 
triumph' in Col. 2. 15, and somewhat diffei'ently in 2 C. 2. 14 ('to 
cause to go in triumph as a victor'; the use in the first passage may 
be paralleled by Plutarch Comp. Thes. et. Rom. 4). Ma0T]T£V€iv (a 
late word) is intrans., 'to be a disciple,' in Mt. 27. 57 v.l., but the 
passive^Tev9i) is read by «CD : trans., ' to make a disciple,' in 
A. 14. 21, Mt. 13. 52 (pass.), 28. 19. "Ep/iropeveo-Oai, a middle verb, is 
intrans. in Ja. 4. 13 : trans, 'to deceive' in 2 P. 2. 3 (so cjuttoASv 
Soph. Ant. 1050). 'I«povpYe!v (a late word) to ei'ayyeAior (like 
Ova-lav) occurs in R. 15. 16. 3 'Yo-repeiv in the sense of 'to be 
wanting ' (without a case in Jo. 2. 3, cp. Dioscor. 5. 86), is trans, in 
Mc. 10. 21 evo-e wrrefxl «BC al. (o-ot AD al.), cp. lxx. Ps. 22. 1 (else- 

1 In L. 12. 15 (öpäre Kai (pvXäacreffOe äirb) the words Kai <pv\. are wanting in the 
Syriac version, and this same sense of ' to beware of ' already belongs to bpav = 
ßXtireiv äirb, Mc. 8. 1 5 öpäre (om. D, these two verbs cannot stand together) ßX^were 
äirb, 12. 38 (on the other hand /3\<?7r. is also used transitively ' to look at ' Mc. 
13. 9, 1 C. 1. 26 etc., and perhaps Ph. 3. 2 unless here it = 0iAd<r<re<r0e). We 
also have irpoaix fiv ^""^ Mt. 16. 6 (öpäre Kai 7rpo<r^x eTf Ö7r6, where öpäre Kai is 
wanting in the Latin witnesses). 

-2 P. 2. 12 ev 6t% äyvoovcnv ßXaacprjp.ovi'Tes 'railing at those things in which 
they know nothing' (the idea is expressed more intelligibly in Jd. 10). 

3 'l\äffKe<r0at ä/maprias H. 2. 17 is noticeable on account of the object, since 
the classical use is (e'£)i\d<rK. Oebv 'to dispose Him to mercy towards one.' But 
a similar use ( = expiare) is also found in lxx. and Philo. 

§34-1-2.] ACCUSATIVE. 89 

where the lxx. also has the dat. Buttm. 147; § 37, 3). The following 
are transitive in virtue of their composition with KttTd (as in class. 
Greek): Karaßpaßivuv Col. 2. 18, Karayuvi^eo-Oai H. 11. 33, koltci- 
<ro<£i£ecr#cu A. 7. 19 ('to get the better of etc.) : with Sid (class.) 
Sunropevecrdau, Siepxecroat, <$ta7rAetv in Lc, Acts, and Hebr. (in one 
sentence we have beside this the construction with Sta and the 
genit., H. 11. 29 8ießi]crav rr)v OdXacrcrav a>s Stot £rjpas yrjs) '■ with 
irapd Trapep\(.(T6ai (including Mc. 6. 48) : with irtpi Trepi€px^<r6aL t<xs 
ot'/aas 1 Tim. 5. 13 (class.), 7r£/no-T7/vat Ttva A. 25. 7 (class.), irepidyeiv 
(also intrans. § 53, 1) Mt. 9. 35, 23. 15, Mc. 6. 6 (with v.l. kv in Mt. 
4. 23): with irpo Trpoepxecrdai Lc. 22. 47 (D irporffev), = class. Trporj- 
yela-dai tlvi; cp. Lat. j^'aeire aliquem; 1 with vn-e'p virepk^^v Ph. 4. 7 (cp. 
§36, 8). 

2. Verbs with variable construction. ES (KaXws) wouiv in Attic 
take the accus, in all cases, similarly /ca/cws (77-oAAa kolko) Troielv Ttva 
and the like ; but in L. 6. 27 we have /caAais iroidre Tots - , Mc. 14. 7 
ev Troidv with dat. (this is wanting in «*) : for the use of these verbs 
with the accus, cp. infra 4. But öxJKXäv and ßXdirreiv (a rare word) 
take riva in the N.T. as in Attic (Xvo-vrsXttv rivt as in Att., but only 
in L. 17. 2 where D has o-iyz^epei) ; similarly KaKws kiyav nva, but 
only in A. 23. 5 O.T., for which elsewhere KaKoXoY«iv nva is used in 
A. 19. 9 etc., like evXoyeiv, besides which we further have KaXws «LVwo-iv 
i'/ias, but only in L. 6. 26 (D vp,U>). (The simple Xe-yeiv with accus, of 
the person = 'to allude to anyone in one's speech,' is found in Jo. 1. 
15 [a v.l.], 8. 27 [a v.l.], Ph. 3. 18, as in classical Greek.) The 
following verbs of cognate meaning take the accusative : tinipEd^iv 
(Att. with dat.) Ttva Mt. 5. 44, L. 6. 28, 1 P. 3. 16 : \v\iatvta-QaC Ttva 
A. 8. 3 (Att. Ttva and Ttvt) : XoiSopeiv Ttva Jo. 9. 28, A. 23. 4 (as in 
Att.): 6va8ij;€iv (Att. Ttvt) Ttva Mt. 5. 1 1 etc. (in 27. 44 aiVw is a 
wrong reading for a^Tov) : pipfoo-Qai avrovs H. 8. 8 N*AD*al., allots 
N c BD c al. (the latter is the Attic use) : KaTapäo-Gai (Att. with dat.) 
with accus, in (Mt. 5. 44 [D* v/uv]), Mc. 11. 21, L. 6. 28 (vfiiv 
EHL al. Justin Ap. i. 15), Ja. 3. 9 (cp. supra 1 ßXaa-^jxdv, 
vßplfriv, with which verbs this whole class, with the exception of ev 
7rot€tv etc., appears to have been brought into uniformity). 'EvTpe'irto-GaL 
Ttva is ' to be afraid of anyone ' (Polyb. and Acts ; the earlier use 
with Ttvos = ' to trouble oneself about '), cp. kTraurxvvecrdaL supra 1 ; 
ßao-Ka£v€iv Ttva 'to envy,' 'bewitch,' G. 3. 1 (in Attic it perhaps also takes 
Ttvt like 4>6oveiv1); irpoo-Kwäv Ttva (Att.) occurs in Mt. 4. 10 O.T., L. 4. 
8 O.T., 24. 52 (om. D), Jo. 4. 22 bis, 23 (airy «* ; in the same verse 
all mss. have ru> Trarpi), 9. 38 D : elsewhere with Ttvt (a late use, 
Lobeck Phryn. 463) or absolute (71-p. evw7rtov Ttvos L. 4. 7) ; yowKinlv 
(Polyb.) Ttva Mt. 17. 14 (D omits aurov), Mc. 10. 17 : without a 
case in Mc. 1. 40, with einrpoo-Oev Mt. 27. 29 (the dat. atVw in the 
former passage has very slight support) ; eva-yveXi^eo-Oai in Attic has 
accus, of the thing, dat. of the person: so also in L. 1. 19, 2. 10, 

1 Jlporiyov/nevoi dWr/Xovs R. 12. IO 'to prefer ' = Ph. 2. 3 dWrjXovs i]yov/j.evoL 
iVepe'xoi'Tas iavrQv (cp. also 1 Th. 5. 13) ; not elsewhere in this sense, but cp. 
TTpoKpiveLv, The ace. of course depends on rjy., not on irpb. 

go ACCUSATIVE. [§34.2-a 

1 C 15. if. etc.: but it is also found with accus, of the person L. 3. 18 
evi)yye\ ruv AaöV and frequently in Luke and Acts, also G. 1. g 
(ibid. 8 with dat.), IP. 1. 12; 1 irapaweZv (only in Luke, from the 
literary language) has accus, instead of the classical dat. A. 27. 22 
(construction like that of 7rapaKaAeü') 2 ; xp^^^ 1 takes ace. in 1 C. 7. 
31 06 xpw/xevoi ruv koct/wv n*AB1)FG, dat. according to « c I) corr EK etc. 
as in 9. 12, 18 etc. (cp. Buttm. p. 157) ; irtwäv and SuJ/av take accus. 
rqv 8LKat,o<rvin)v Mt. 5. 6 (class, gen.), elsewhere they are used with- 
out a case. 

3. The so-called accusative of the inner objector of content, found 
with intransitive and passive verbs and generally Avith any verb, is 
used in the N.T. practically in the same way as in the classical 
language (there being a special reason for its being kept, as the 
Hebrew had a similar usage). This accusative, whether it be that 
of a substantive which is radically connected with the verb or of one 
connected only in sense, in most cases requires, in order to have any 
raison d'etre at all, to be more nearly defined by means of an adjective 
or a genitive, whereas the dative of verbal substantives when simi- 
larly used does not need this nearer definition, see § 38, 3. This is 
also occasionally omitted with the accusative, if the substantive has 
a more concrete meaning, as in Mt. 1 3. 30 (according to the correct 
reading of I) Origen etc.) o^o-are (avra) Deo-fids (nBC etc. read eh' 8.) 
'into bundles,' which is a quite different use from Mt. 12. 29 Sujo-y 
rbv Icrxvpov (ace. of the outer object), but at the same time is not 
entirely similar to the possible phrase 8elv Seaiv, since the ace. Seo-fxds 
denotes an external result or product of the action (cp. olKoBoLielv 
oIkiolv L. 6. 48, Trotijfia, ypdcpeiv ypdp.p.a.Ta) ; an object of this 
kind may then become the subject to a passive verb (G. 1. 11). A 
similar instance is L. 2. 8 cfavXaaro-ovTes <£vAa/<as of ' watch duty,' 
'sentry duty' (so in Xenoph. Anab. 2. 6. 10 etc.; also in LXX.), where 
(f)vX.a,Ki'i expresses a definite objective kind of </>r>AdWen', and by no 
means expresses merely the abstract idea of the verb ; so IBelv opa/ia 
A. 11. 5, 16. 10 (passively o'pa/m &<}>0i] 16. q). 3 But in other cases 
we have Mt. 2. 10 e^dprjerav xapuv |A€Yd\Tiv <r4>c58pa, Mc. 4. 41 e^oßt^dycrav 
(poßov \iiyav, Ap. 16. 9 eKavLiaT urßrjo-av Kavpa [xeya, 1 P. 3. 14 tov <f>6ßov 
aviTüv ('fear of them') /xr) cfioßijOijre, Col. 2. 19 av£ei ('grows') rrjv 
avfyp-iv toG deov. This closer defining of the noun is also not absent 
where the verb stands in a relative sentence : Jo. 17. 26 1) dyaV?/ i)v 
i'iyi'nnprds /xe (ij according to D), Mc. 10. 38 to ßdiTTio-Lia o eyio 
ßaTTTt(ofxat ßa.7rTio-di}vcu, Herrn. Mand. VÜ. I 6 (jjoßos ov Set ere <f>oßi)Orjvai. 
To the same class of accusative belong the cases where, in place of 
the substantive with the word which more closely defines it, the 
latter word occurs alone, either in the gender of the substantive, 

1 But not with a double ace; in A. 13. 32 tt)v ... iirayye\lav should be taken 
with the following clause. 

- XioauKciu with dat. instead of ace. in Ap. 2. 14 rests on a reading which is 
quite uncertain. 

3 But ä/jLapT&vovTa ä/xaprlav 1 Jo. 5. 16 is more closely defined by /xtj npos 
ddvarov : cp. the following words ianv (' there is ') afxaprla irpbs 6. 

§ 34- 3-4.] A CCUS A Tl VE. g i 

which must then be supplied, as in L. 12. 47 f. Sap^a-erac iroWds, 
dAtyas sc. 7rA?;yas, or more commonly in the neuter : L. 5. 33 
V7]CTTevov(Tiv TTVKvd ( = 7rvKi/a§ v?;o-Teias), 2 C 13. 1 rpirov TOVTO ep^o/xat 
('for the third time'), Ph. 1. 6 7re7roiöu>s avrb tovto ('having this confi- 
dence'), 2. 18, 1 C. 9. 25 iravTa kyKparet^rai (but in Herrn. Mand. 
viii. 2 «y^p. to -rrovrjpov is an instance of a true objective ace, being 
opposed to 7roteiv to 7z\: ibid. 2-12 the verb is also used with coro, 
genit., and inf.; cp. v^o-reveiv tov koo-/xov in the Adyta 'h]<rov from 
Oxyrhynchus), 10. 33 7ravTa Trdcriv dpecrKW, 11. 2 ivdvTO. p.ov p-epLvijcrde 
which is still more adverbial ' in everything,' ' in every respect ' ; to 
8' avrb Ph. 2. 18, Mt. 27. 44 'in like manner' (on which is modelled 
the concise phrase in 2 C. 6. 13 rr/v avT^v dvTip.urQia.v 'in like manner 
in return,' Fritzsche) ; p-^Sev StaK-ptvd/xevos A. 10. 20, cp. 11. 12; 
2 C. 12. 11 ovSev vcrreprja-a, 1 cp. 11. 5, Mt. 19. 20 tl va-repw ; ('wherein 
am I still backward 1 ' whereas ti'vo? vcrr. = ' what do I lack 1 '), 2 C. 
12. 13 tl kcTTtv ö rjcr(TU)d7]Te (similar sense) ; E. 6. 10 yap diredavev, 
ttj dpapTi'a diredavev — b Se fyj, £rj toj #£oj, G. 2. 20 b vvv £c3 iv crapni, 
iv 7rio-T£6 ^w (the death that He died, the life that He liveth, or 
else = m that He died and liveth). Still the use of these neuters 
in the N.T. is far less extensive than in the classical language. 

4. A double accusative is found mainly with a number of verbs 
which can take both a personal object as well as (in another relation) 
an object of the thing. Thus SiSdo-tceiv with aTroa-Taa-iav iravras 
tovs — A. 21. 21, cp. Mc. 6. 34 avTovs 77-oAAa (where however 7roAAa 
is rather to be regarded as ace. of the inner object), Jo. 14. 26 upas 
Trdvra, also H. 5. 12 tov SibdcTKav vp.ds nvd (not Tiva) ra o-TOt^eia 
k.t.A. (thus the examples with this verb are not many): &vo,|j.i.|avtio-k«iv 
1 C. 4. 17, viro|u|j.v. Jo. 14. 26. But Kpvrrmv nvd tl is not repre- 
sented, the phrase used being tl aVd (Hebr. y/2) tlvos, Mt. 11. 25 
(aV)e Kpv\pa<i ravra drrb cro^wv (Herrn. Sim. ix. 11. 9) or the still more 
Hebraistic Kpv\paTe i^uas aVo 7rpocrw7rov tov - Ap. 6. 16 (passively 
K£€vov dV olvtwv L. 18. 34 [as incidentally also in Homer 
Odyss. 23. 110 Ke/vpiyzpeva dir aAAcov], eKpvßr] aVb d<pöaAptov crov 
19. 42). Alrttv Tivd tl Mt. 6. 8 (D is different), Mc. 6. 22 f. etc., 
besides which irapd may be used of the person (class.) Jo. 4. 9, 
A. 9. 2 (the middle verb : this never takes double ace), or aVd 
Mt. 20. 20 BD (v.l. Trap'), 1 Jo. 5. 15 kB (similar v.l.) : kpmw (ask a 
question) TLvd tl Mt. 21. 24, Mc. 4. 10. (The following are not 
found with double ace: &<{>aipeiv, -6io-0cu, the person being introduced 
by aVd L. 16. 3, or placed in the gen. [ibid. D; L. 10. 42 etc.], as 
also in classical Greek : and diroo-Tepciv the thing is placed in the 
gen. in 1 Tim. 6. 5, but there is a v.l.]. IIol«iv TLvd tl ' to do some- 
thing with' occurs in Mt. 27. 22 rl (accus, of the predicate) 7roi7?o-w 
'h]<xovv, cp. Herm. Sim. i. 4 t( 7rot^o-ets tov aypdv, A. 12. 18 Ti 6 
IleTpos e'yei/eTo what was become of P.: Mc. 15. 12 is similar to the 
passage of Matthew, but D reads tw /WiAei = what shall I do to ? 
cp. supra 2; with the same meaning we have the construction tl tlvi 

1 The reading ovdev (NBP oi)5evos) xP et - av ^X w Ap. 3. 17 can hardly be right. 

9 2 ACCUSATIVE. [§34-4-5. 

Mt, 21. 40, L. 20. 15, A. 9. 13, Herrn. Sim. v. 2. 2, ix. 11. 8: also 
A. 16. 28 pgSev irpd^r/s [in place of 7roiiya-?/s] creavTw kcikov. In Attic 
the ace. must be used in all cases in this sense, supra 2, whereas 
iroidv Tivi Tt 'to do something for anyone,' as in Mc. 7. 12, 10. 36, 
is also correct Attic Greek. Instead of ttolüv ri tlvl we also have 
7T. ti ev rivt or eis tivu, Mt. 17. 12 [om. kv nD al.], L. 21. 31, Jo. 15. 21 
[vpiv AD' 2 al.] ; cp. Kakbv epyov i)pydcra.TO iv kpol Mc. 14. 6, eis epe 
Mt. 26. 10 [Attic has epy. with double ace.]; outojs yev^Tai ev e/xoi 
1 C. 9. 15, cp. L. 21. 31 [Buttm. p. 130]). The double ace. is also 
found after verbs of putting on and putting off: ev8i8v<rK€iv, Zk8i8. nvd 
tl Mt. 27. 31, Mc. 15. 17, 20, L. 15. 22 ; hence we have also in the 
N.T. (not class.) irepißakkuv rivd ti L. 23. n AD al. (om. avrbv 
nB al.), Jo. 19. 2 (but not with irepiTiOevai which takes tivi ti 
Mt. 27. 28, nor with Trepißdkkeiv when used in other connections, 
see L. 19. 43). Also with xP l ' €tv : H. 1. 9 O.T. nva ekaiov, a Hebraic 
use (but in Ap. 3. 18 the ace. aokkvpiov must certainly be taken in 
connection with dyopda-ai, not with ly\puraC). With causative verbs 
this use is more developed than in classical Greek : ttoti^iv T iva 
rroTijpLov Mc. 9. 41, ydka 1 C. 3. 2, 'to make to drink,' cp. Plat. 
Phaedr. 247 E (so also i/-w/zt£w in the LXX., 'to make to eat': in 
1 C. 13. 3 with the ace. of the thing only, cp. Winer, § 32, note 4), 
4>opTi^€iv 'to make to carry' L. 11. 46, 6pK^«iv and kvopx. (strictly 'to 
make to swear by,' Hdt. e^opKovv nva to Stilus v8(op 6. 74) 'to adjure 
by' Mc. 5. 7 etc., vide supra 1. — In addition there are the instances, 
few in number, where the ace. of the inner and of the outer object 
are found together: Jo. 17. 26 ■>) dydirg i)v (vj according to D) 
i'iyaTnjads pe, E. 2. 4 tj)v ay. ?}v rjydir ijcrev i)pds, L. 4. 35 pg8ev ßkdifas 
avTov, G. 5. 2 vpds ovBev uxpikrjcrei, 4. 12, A. 25. 10, Mt. 27. 44, 
Mc. 6. 34 (supra). 

5. A different class of double accusative is that where one ace. is 
the ace. of the predicate, the construction corresponding to that of 
intransitive and passive verbs with a double nominative. This class 
is used after verbs of making (iroidv avrbv ßaa-ikka Jo. 6. 15, cp. supra 
4, oi' eö)//cev Kki]pov6pov H. 1. 2, tj's p-e KaTkurrjcnv KpiTijv L. 12. 14) : 
having and taking (A. 13. 5 d\ov 'Iwavrjv virgpergv, Ja. 5. 10 inroSeiy/xa 
kdßere tous 7r/oo<^Tas) : designating, railing (Jo. 10. 35 Ikovovs eT-e 
fteoi's, 15. 15, Mc. 10. 18 Tt p.e Aeyas dyaOov ; L. 1. 59 Zxdkovv avrb 
Za-^apiav : in Hebraic style 1. 13, 31 »caAeaeis to ovopa avrov 'Itodvrjv, 
'Iga-ovv, cp. the passive enkrjOr) to öV. a. 'h]<rovs 2. 21, Buttm. p. 132) : x 
confessing, 6/zoAoyeiv avruv Kpurrov Jo. 9. 22 (with eTvai D), 1 Jo. 4. 2 
(ace. and inf. B), 2 Jo. 7 : regarding, (Ph. 3. 7 touto ■ ^gptav, 
ibid. 8 with eivai introduced, which is elsewhere always wanting 
with rjyetardat, whereas vice versa vo/ufetv and virokapßdvuv do not 
appear with a double ace; A. 20. 24 iroiovfiai rqv ip v XV v "A 11 '« 1 ') but 
there is a v.l. in which ttoiou/agu is replaced by e\w, for which in this 
sense [ = Lat. habere] cp. L. 14. iS e'xe pe irap-grrjfuvov, Ph. 2. 29: 
t'xeiv with ws Mt. 14. 5, 21. 26, like i)yela-$ai ws 2 Th. 3. 15, Clem. 

1 The dat. is used with iiriKaXclv ovofxa in Mt. 10. 25 B*, cp. § 37, 7. 

§34-5-6.] ACCUSATIVE. 93 

Cor. ii. 5. 6, Herrn. Vis. i. 1. 7) : l proving (o-wio-rdvai, G. 2. 18, but 
eaxJTous u»s 6eov Slolkovol 2 C. 6. 4 ; on 2 C. 7. i i see § 36, 2 note), 
(feigning, viroKpivofievovs eavrovs Sikoiovs L. 20. 20 D). Beside 
these double accusatives we occasionally find et's prefixed to the 
predicate, showing Hebrew influence (cp. § 33, 3), A. 13. 22 -ijyeipev 

avroh rbv AavlS eis ßatrcXka, 47 O.T., 7. 21 j Mt. 21. 46 «is 7rpo<f»JTy)\' 

((Ls 7rp. CD al.) awTov e^x 017 (more frequent in lxx. ; Clem. 
Cor. i. 42. 4 Kadia-ravov eis eVio-KöVovs) ; the inserted a>s (other 
instances given above) may also be a Hebraism, cp. eAoyicr#?//*ev m 
E. 8. 36 O.T. (Hebr. 3). — One may refer to this class of double ace. 

L. 9. 14 KaraKXivare aiVovs KAicrias wa Tre^TV/KOFTa, cp. Mc. 6. 39 ; 

again Mt. 13. 30 Selv aura Seo-päs, supra 3; and the classical Staipeiv 
n 6vo pep/, Kühner ii. 2 278 f. 

6. The passives of the verbs specified in 4 (with which verbs when 
used in the passive the person and not the thing usually becomes 
the subject) occasionally appear with the object of the thing : 
2 Th. 2. 15 ras 7rapaSdcreis äs iSiSd-^firjre, 1 C. 12. 13 ev Trvevpa 
eiroricrdgpev (of course evSeSvpevos, TrepißeßXiipevos also take this 
object, but they are middle and not passive) ; 2 we further have 
(formed after the classical TreiQe.iv nvd ti) ireTrelo-jxeda to, Kpetcrcrova 
H. 6. 9, and Ph. 3. 8 to. Trdvra efy]puo6i]v, Mt. 16. 26 ttjv ipv^-qv avrov 
fylpiwOy (cp. Mc. 8. 36, L. 9. 25), opposed to /cepSaiveiv, and formed 
on the model of (r/pioPv rtva faptav, but with a further derivative 
sense of the verb = to lose. 3 Since moreover the person who is 
expressed by the dative after the active verb may become the 
subject to the passive verb (cp. § 54, 3), such passives may also 
appear with the ace. of the thing : ireirurTcvfiai to et'ayye'Aioi' G-. 2. 7, 
OLKOvopiav TreTTLcrTevpat 1 C. 9. 17, R. 3. 2, t?)v äXvcriv irepcKetpai 
A. 28. 20 (active TrepiTidevat rivi ti), H. 5. 2 (also L. 17. 2 according 
to d At#ov pvXiKbv 7re/jie/<etTo : Herrn. Vis. v. 1, Sim. vi. 2. 5). Finally 

we have (formed after 8eiv avTov 7rdoas Mt. 22. 13) Se&pevos tows 7rd6a9 
Jo. 11. 44, 8iecj)dappevot tov vovv 1 Tim. 6. 5, pepavTurpevoL ras /capSias, 

XeXovpevot tö crwpa H. 10. 22 f., according to a general usage of the 
Greek language, which is employed with still greater freedom 
especially by St. Paul : Karrixovpevos rbv Adyov G. 6. 6 ' he who is 
instructed in the gospel,' cp. A. 18. 25, 21. 24, L. 1. 4?, while with 
the active verb the person is the object, never the thing ; 
TreTrXyjpwpevoi xapirhv SiKaioo-w?/? Ph. 1. II, cp. Col. 1. 9, 'with the 
fruit' (a Hebraism, Exod. 31. 3 eveTrXyicra avrbv rrvevpa o-ocfitas) ; rrjv 
airn)v ci/cöVa perapoptjiovpeßa 2 C. 3. 18 'into the same image'; (on 
TTjv avrrjv avTipio-Qlav TrXaTvvdr]Te ibid. 6. 13 cp. supra 4, and for tov 
avrbv rpoiTov infra 7 ; dvafpavevres ri)v K.virpov A. 21. 3 is a wrong 
reading for dva<f)dvavre<;). 

1 Hermas also has (Sim. viii. 3, 4) yvwcrrj clitovs iravras rovs k.t.X. 'recognise 
them to be those who ' etc. 

2 Instead of the ace. with irepLßäWeadai the Apocalypse has ev with dat. in 
3. 5, 4. 4 (here AP omit ev) ; so too Mt. 11. 8, L. 7. 25 i]/x(pLeaßevov ev fxaXcucoh. 

3 Hdt. 7. 37 is wrongly adduced as a parallel : rriv ipvxv" tlvos (his son's) 
fo/juouadai (to lose as a punishment) : the mss. have ttj 4 /l 'XV- 

94 ACCUSATIVE. [§34-7-8. 

7. The accusative of reference with adjectives and the like has 
a very limited use in the N.T., since this function is mostly taken 
over by the dative, § 38, 2. Mt. 27. 57 Tovvofia 'by name' (class.; 
elsewhere ov6jj.o.ti) : Jo. 6. 10 tuv dpidfiuv ws 1revTa.Kio-x_lX.101 : H. 
2. 17 7ticttös dp\L€pevs To. TTpus Tov 0e6v. But this same phrase 
to 7T/3us tuv 6e<n> 11. 15. 17, together with the phrases P. 12. 18 tö e£ 
Vfitov — elprjvevovTCS, 9. 5 tu Kara crdpKa and 16. 19 to e<£' lyuv as a 
v.l., to Ka6^' efs 12. 5, has already become an adverbial accusative, 
similar to eveKOT7Tup.i]V rd iroX.Xd (v.l. 7roAAa/as) P. 15. 22, to TrXelcrTov 
(at most) Tpets 1 C. 14. 27, to irpoTepov, tu irpu>Tov cp. § 11, 5; in 
to Kad' fjfiepav 'daily' L. 19. 47, 11. 3, A. 17. 11, 28 D, 19. 9 D the 
article is meaningless, cp. to irpoii 5. 21 D, to SeiXivov 'in the after- 
noon' 3. iD (infra 8) ; to Aoi7röV and Xonrov ' for the rest,' ' now,' 
'already' Mt. 26. 45 = Mc. 14. 41 (in both passages a v.l. without 
to), A. 27. 20 (A.), 2 C. 13. 11 (A.), E. 6. 10 to A. (k*AB toG AoittoG 
'henceforth,' see § 36, 13), and frequently in the Pauline Epp., also 
H. 10. 13 (also Attic); to vvv e'x ov A. 24. 25 'for the present' 
(Lucian and others); to teAos 'finally' 1 P. 3. 8, tyjv dpxi')v 'from 
the beginning,' 'at all' Jo. 8. 25. Again, the phrases ov rpöirov 
Mt. 23. 37 and passim, tuv üp.oiov t/döVov Jd. 7 come under the head 
of accusative of the inner object (besides which we have the dat. 
Ph. 1. 18 7ravTi TpöVw, § 38, 3, and ko.6' ov Tp. A. 15. 11, 27. 25, cp. 
R. 3. 2, 2 Th. 2. 3). 

8. Accusative of extension in space and time : L. 22. 41 direo-irao-dy 
dir' avTwv wcret Xidov ßo\i]v, 2. 44, Jo. 6. 19, answering the question 
How far 1 where the ace. may be regarded as a kind of object of 
the thing; Jo. 2. 12 ep.eivav ov 7roAAas ypepas, answering the 
question How long 1 (to be similarly explained, cp. the dat. § 38, 5) ; 
as to Mt. 20. 2 en 8i]vapiov ('at a denarius') rr/v i)p.epav, 
'a day,' 'per day,' vide § 36, 8. Further, vvkto. ko.1 i)p.epav 'day and 
night' Mc. 4. 27, L. 2. 37, A. 26. 7; Tas ^//.epas - Ta? viWas L. 21. 37 
'during the days, the nights'; fyxepav c£ r/p-epas 2 P. 2. 8 is classical. 
This accusative appears to go beyond its own department in the 
phrases to SciAivov, to irpwt. (see 7), where the question asked is 
When 1 ? (cp. p.ko~uv ->)p.epas lxx. Dan Sus. 7) ; 2 as it does moreover 
in its use with topa (occurring in classical Greek): Jo. 4. 52 i\8es 
£>pav eß86p.rjv, Ap. 3. 3 irolav wpav, A. 10. 30 (and verse 3 with v.l. 
ir€pl (">pav ivaTrjv as in verse 9), cp. Aesch. Eum. 159 iopuv ouSevos 
KOivrjv, Eurip. Bacch. 722 rr)V TeTayp.evrjv üpav, Aristot. 'Ad. noAiT. 
cap. 30 ad fin. t?)v &pav ti)v TrpopptjOdcrav, Demosth. 54. 4 etc. ( = a's 
&pav, 'at the hour,' «rt t. üpav A. 3. 1), although the N.T. has also 
Troia wpp and similar phrases, for which and for the encroachment 
of the dat. on the functions of the accus, see § 38, 4 and 5. A 
peculiar idiom is found in A. 27. 33 Teo-o-apeo-Kai8eKaTi]v o-,)p.epov 
rjjxtpav, i.e. 'it is to-day the 14th day since' etc., 'to-day is the 

1 '08bv 0a\dcrar)$ Mt. 4. 1 5 O.T. is a literal rendering of the Hebr. "!]Tj = versus, 
which appears elsewhere in the lxx., e.g. Deut. 11. 30. 

2 Cp. also lxx. tt)v fj.eo"nnßplav Gen. 43. 16, tö irpui Ex. 7. 15. See Sophocles 
Lexic. p. 44. 

§ 34- § 35- 1-2.] GENITIVE. 95 

14th day in succession that,' cp. Demosth. rplrov eVos rovr'i, 'it is 
now the third year that.' — In answer to the question How far 
distant ? beside the accus. (L. 24. 13 aTrk\ovo-av o-raSiovs i^JKovra 
dirb 'lepova-., cp. A. 1. 12), we find also oltto with the genitive, 
probably a Latinism (a millibus passuum duobus, Caes. B. G. 2. 7) : 
Jo. 11. 18 rjv BrjOavia iyyvs rdv 'Iep., ws (X7rö (rraSicov SeKto-evre, cp. 
21. 8, Ap. 14. 20, Herrn. Vis. iv. 1. 5 (Diod., Plut. etc.). 


1. By far the most extensive use of the genitive is that by which it 
defines a noun more closely after the manner of an adjective, and 
like an adjective either as attribute or predicate , in the latter case 
the genitive is said to be dependent on thai (yiveo-Oai etc.). The 
kind of relation which exists between the genitive and its noun 
can only be decided by the sense and context : in the N.T. this 
is often purely a matter of theological interpretation, which cannot 
form part of the teaching of a grammatical work. The place of 
the noun, which is defined by the genitive, may also be taken by 
a pronoun and more especially by the article. We select here only 
the points that are worthy of note. 

2. Genitive of origin and membership. — As in the classical 
language, the genitive is used where a particular person is indicated 
by the mention of his father, 'IoEkw/Jov rbv rov ZeßeSaiov Mt. 4. 21 
etc., a use in which the introduction of vlos is perfectly admissible, 
'Iiodvrjv rbv Tiayapiov vlov L. 3. 2 ; in the case of the sons of Zebedee, 
if named together, viol (almost) always appears, Mt. 26. 37, 27. 56, 
Mc. 10. 35, L. 5. 10, only in Jo. 21. 2 ABL al. read ol tov Z., while 
oi viol Z. is read by **DE ; where vl6<$ is omitted the introduction 
of one article, contrary to the usual classical practice, causes the 
insertion of the article with the other noun as well, thus AavlS 
rbv tov 'Iecnrat A. 13. 22 O.T., cp. § 46, 10 (but without an article 
'IovSav Sipwvos 'Io-KapiwTou Jo. 6. 71 etc., similarly in Greek style 
2w7TOTpos Hvppov Bepoiaios A. 20. 4). Indication of the mother by 
her son's name: Mc. 15. 40 (cp. Mt. 27. 56) Map«* ^ 'laKwßov rov 
[xiKpov Kal 'Iwo-fJTos (ATJTi]p, whence in verse 47 M. •>? 'Iwo-rjros, 15. 1 
M. f) 'la.Ku>ßov as in L. 24. 10 (the article with the gen. is in this 
case neglected except in Mt. 27. 56 ?/ rov 'la«. - p?/T^p). Of the 
wife by her husband's name (this is also classical) : Mt. 1. 6 rijs tov 
Ovpiov, Jo. 19. 25 Maptap r) tov KXunrd. 1 Whether in the case of 
the apostle called TovSas TaKw/Jou L. 1. 16, A. 1. 13, v'ws or in 
accordance with Jd. 1 dSeA<£os is to be supplied (the latter is 
grammatically admissible : cp. TipoKpar^s o MrjrpoSwpov sc. aS. 
Alciphron Ep. ii. 2) is a question which need not be discussed here. 
Membership in a family (including a family of slaves) : rwv XA0V7S 
1 C. 1. 11, roi's (sc. brethren, Christians) Ik twi/ (sc. slaves) 'Apicrro- 
ßovXov, Nap/ao-o-ou B,. 16. 10 f. Ytos occurs in a metaphorical sense 

1 The v.l. in A. 7. 13 'E/xfxCjp tov Sux^u (DH : al. iv S. or tov iv S.) is explained 
in accordance with Gen. 33. 19 as 'E. waTpos 2., which in any case is wrong. 

96 GENITIVE. [§ 35. 2-4. 

(a common Hebraism) : 1 Th. 5. 5 viol </><otos ecrre kcu uioi ?}pepas ; 
hence with omission of vios, the genitive being also used predicatively, 
ovk vvktos ov8e (Tkotovs 1 Th. 5. 6, ?/pep ai > öVre? 8, cp. H. 10. 39 
ovk e'o-pev v7roo-ToAvys - aAAa 7rto-T€oj§. Possession or discipleship : 

01 tou XpicrTou 1 C. 15. 23 ; as predicate, A. 27. 36 tou Oeov ov el/u, 
R. 8. 9 of'Tos ouk «rriv avTou (Xp.), 1 C. 1. 12, 3. 4 eyco pev eipi 
Uavkov etc., 6. 19 ovk fare eairrwv ('do not belong to yourselves,' cp. 
20), 3. 21 iravra i'pwv Zcttl ( = tyzeVepa, cp. § 48, 7); L. 20. 14; A. 1. 7 
oi'x ujuwv ea-Ti yvwvai ' does not belong to you,' ' is not your concern,' 

2 P. 1. 20 Trpo(f>r]T€La i'Sias eViAwrews oi5 yiVeTai ; H. 5. 14 TeAeiwv eo"Tii' 
■>) o-repta Tpo(fii') ; Herrn. Sim. viii. 7. 6 1) £w?) irdvTUiv «rri tmv — , cp. 
A. 10. 36 after the removal of the interpolated Ki'pws, A. 20. 3 
(Thuc. 1. 113). — The use of ev, eh with the genitive of the house of 
anyone is not found in the New Testament, nor yet the phrases Iv, 
eis A'iSov (as in Clem. Cor. i. 4. n), instead of which we have Iv to) 
§.8y L. 16. 22, eis olSrjv A. 2. 27 O.T. (d8ov EP and some mss. of the 
lxx.), 31 (ö,8ov ACDEP). 

3. Objective genitive. Noteworthy instances are Mt. 24. 6 d/coou 
TToXi/xoiv 'rumours of wars': A. 4. 9 evepyecria dvOpuirov 'to a man': 
R. 10. 2 (rjkos deov 'concerning God' (Jo. 2. 17 O.T. 6 £ tov olkov o-ov): 
Jo. 7. 13, 20. 19 81a. tov (poßov Twv 'Iov8aiu)v 'fear of the Jews.' 
Further instances : Mt. 13. 18 tj/v irapaßoX^v tov o-Tretpovros (cp. 36) 
about, of: 1 C 1. 6 to papTi'piov tov Xpio-Toi>, 1. 18 6 Aoyos 6 tou 
o-ravpov, Mt. 4 23 etc. to ei'ayyeAiov t/}s /SacriAeias, Mc. 1. I to evayy. 
'I?;o-oi) Xp. ; phrases similar to the last are frequent in St. Paul 
(besides this use we have er'ayy. Oeov in E. 1. 1 and elsewhere, 
denoting the author, the meaning being there explained by 7repi tov 
vlov avTov in verse 3; to evayy, pov R. 2. 16, 16. 25, cp. 2 C. 4. 3, 
2 Tim. 2. 8, denoting the preacher; and to ei'ayy. ttjs uKpoßvo-Tias 
G. 2. 7 = ' among,' ' to,' similar to the use of evayy e\i(eo- dal Tiva ; but 
evayy. MaT#aiov etc. would be presumptuous and false, as if the 
individual evangelist had a special gospel proceeding from himself, 
therefore Kam M. etc. is used, i.e. according to Matthew's presenta- 
tion of it). Other objective genitives are 7tio-tis 'hjo-ov Xp. R. 3. 22 
etc., for which we also have ir. eis tov Kvptov 'I. Xp. A. 20. 21 etc. and 
ev Xp. 'I. 1 Tim. 3. 13 etc.: VTraKor) tov Xp., tt}s 7ricrTews, t. u\r)ßeia<s 
2 C. 10. 5, R. 1. 5, 1 P. 1. 22 etc., whereas dydirrj tov 9eov can be 
both subjective and objective, but in Sikcuoo-i'i')/ t. 6. and 8lk. ti}s 
Trio-Tews the gen. indicates the author and the cause respectively, 
hence t) €K 9. 8lk. Ph. 3. 9, ■>) Ik Trio-Tews 8. R. 9. 30, also Sid 7ricrTeojs 
Ph. 3. 9. In R. 2. 7 iVopon) epyov dyadov ' endurance in ' is also a 
kind of objective genitive ; on the other hand 1 Th. 1. 3 ti}s iVopoi'T/s 
Tv/s eA7riSos is parallel with the phrases to? epyov tt}s Trio-Tews and tov 
kottov t>]s dydV^s, and is rather to be regarded as subjective, express- 
ing patient hope in conjunction with active faith (cp. G. 5. 6) and 
labouring love. 

4. The genitive of the whole or partitive genitive has not altogether 
died out, although its place has been taken to a great extent by the 
periphrasis with e'£ (uVo, Iv). Mt. 5. 29 f. ev t<ov peAwv o-ov, 6. 29 

§ 35- 4.] GENITIVE. g? 

ev tol'twv, 10. 42 eva twv piKpwv toutwv etc.; but 10. 29, 18. 12 ev l£ 
o.i5twv, 26. 21 efc e£ i'/iwv etc.: in Mt. 6. 27, 7. 9, L. 11. 5, 12. 25 and 
elsewhere tis l£ up wv > an d> generally speaking, in the case of tis the 
gen. appears more frequently with l£ than without it (Mt. 22. 28 has 
rtVos tüjv eirrd, but twv Itttoi appears not to be genuine : Mc. 12. 23 
Ttvos avTwi', here also the gen. is wanting in Ack : L. 7. 42 tis avrwv, 
but avT. is omitted by D etc.: 14. 5 tivos fy/.wv, D <=£ t>p,wv : 20. 33 
tivos avTwv, but ai'T. om. N*e ff, 2 so that the only certain instances of 
the simple gen. remaining are A. 7. 52, H. 1. 5, 13). With tis, 
however, the reverse is the case, the simple gen. preponderating 
(except in John) ; with eKacrros it is found exclusively ; but 7ras e£ 
vfxwv L. 14. 33. This use of e£ can hardly be called classical 
(although povos <=£ awdvTwv and similar phrases occur), 1 still it is 
more classical than that of aVo in Mt. 27. 21 Tiva euro rav 8vo; the 
use of ev also has classical precedent, Ja. 5. 13, 14, 19, 1 C. 15. 12 
tis ev, A. 5. 34 tis ev tw o-vveopiw (D Ik Tou crvveopiov) ; cp. on the 
periphrasis for the partitive gen. with verbs, § 36, 1. This gen. is 
used predicatively in <Sv «mv 'Ypevaios 1 Tim. 1. 20, A. 23. 6 : with 
Ik Jo. 18. 17, L. 22. 58, 1 C. 12. 15 I (Clem. Cor. ii. 14. 1, 18. 1). 
The following is noticeable : to. avTa twv TraOrjp,drwv 1 P. 5. 9 
(strictly incorrect). — The employment of the partitive gen. or a 
periphrasis for it as subject or object of the sentence is peculiar : 
Jo. 16. 17 (Ittov ck twV paö?/Twv avrov (some of his disciples) 7rpos 
JAA?yAoTS, 7. 40 ck toG o^Aou aKoixravTes — eAeyoi', 2 7rapayevopevwv Ik 
ttjs TrdAews L. 8. 35 D (some men of the town), A. 21. 16 <rvvrjk$ov 
8e kcu (ek add. E) twv p,a9rjTMv oltto Kcucrapeias, 3 19. 33 €K tov o'y_Aov 
(sc. Tives), Ap. 11. 9, L. 21. 16 davcLTWo-ovo-LV l£ vpwv (sc. Tivas), 
11. 49, Mt. 23. 34, Ap. 2. 10, 2 Jo. 4; it even takes the place of a 
dative in Jo. 3. 25 lyeveTO {V^/cris ek twv p.adrjT(iciv 'Iwdi'ov p.erd 
'lovSacov (-wv) 'on the part of some of the disciples,' cp. A. 15. 2. 
This form of expression is due to Hebrew influence ()"ß), although 
in isolated cases the genitive is also so used in Attic (Xenoph. Anab. 
3, 5. 16 : Hellen. 4, 2. 20). — To the class of partitive genitives 
belongs also the gen. of the country, added to define the particular 
place intended, and always with the article (§ 46, 11) : Na£ape# tJJs 
TaAiAouas Mt. 21. 11, Mc. 1. 9, Kava rrjs TaA. Jo. 2. I, Tapcros tt}s 
KtAtKtas A. 22. 3, with 71-0 Ais 21. 39, 16. 12 r/Tis (^iAittttoi) Icttiv 
7rpwT7js (as should be read) pepiSos t?)s MaKeSovtas ttoAis. As a 
definition of time : oipe a-aßßdrojv Mt. 28. 1 ' late on the Sabbath ' 
(which in accordance with the next clause and Mc. 16. 1 must be 
equivalent to ' after the Sabbath '), Sis rov a-aßßdrov ' twice in the 
week' L. 18. 12. A further instance may be noticed: L. 19. 8 to. 
rjp\i(reia (to. rfpicrv AE,[D]) twv tVapxovTwv with classical assimilation 
to the gen. instead of to rjp.icrv (Kühner ii. 2 299, rj ^pio-eia tt)s yfjs) ; 

1 M6vos in the N.T. is never more nearly defined by a reference to the whole 
of which it is a part. 

2 HoWol is an interpolation of TAA al. 

3 Here however nves tQv may have dropped out after ßadrjTwv, since a second 
article is required. 


9 8 GENITIVE. [§ 35. 4-5. 

elsewhere we have ■tjfiurv Katpov Ap. 12. 14 (cp. 11. 9, 11 without a 
genitive), etos ?}/z«j-ous ttjs ßaatXda<; Mc. 6. 23, like to SeKaroi' 
(SC. fxepos) r?j<i 7roAea>s Ap. 11. 13. 

5. A nearer definition of any kind by means of quality, direction, 
aim etc. is expressed by the genitive in a long series of phrases, 
some of which obviously take their origin from Hebrew (in which 
language the adjective is but slightly developed) : fiia-öov ttJs d8i/aas 

A. 1. l8, /X. CtS. 2 P. 2. 15, 6 OtKOVO/XOS Tv)s aSlKiaS L. 16. 8, TOV fJLdfUDvä 
TtJ? tt6\ 9, 6 KpiTTjS T. dS. 18. 6 = 6 dSlKOS (cp. 16. II kv TW dSlKO) 

jxapnova) : KapSia Trovrjpd d7rio"n'a5 H. 3. 1 2, pt'/para ßXao-(f)7]p,ias A. 
6. 11 K*D with V.l. ßXdo-(py)/xa, cp. Ap. 13. I, 17. 3, X ^ iriKpias 
A. 8. 23, /jt£a TTiK/Dias H. 12. 15 cp. lxx. Deut. 29. 18, 1 A. 9. 15 
crKeuos CKAoyrJs = ckXcktov (in R. 9. 22 f. crKevt] opyrjs, vk. eAeons are 
different, being equivalent to persons who bear the wrath or the 
mercy), 01 Adyoi ttjs \apiTOS L. 4. 22, iradi) drifuas R. 1. 26, o oiVos 
tou dvp.ov Ap. 14. 10 etc. (where there is no equivalent adjective 
which could replace the gen.), to o-w/m ttjs dfiaprias R. 6. 6, to o-. 
tov davdrov 7. 24 (cp. dvrjrbv o\ 6. 12, 8. 11), r. o~. ttJs Ta— eivwcreais 
i)/iiov and t. o\ T)}s 8o£rjs auTOU Ph. 3. 21, r. o\ t»S o~ap/<ds Col. 1. 2 2, 
2. 1 1 etc. The reverse order of words e.g. eVi 7r Aoutou dS^AoV?/™ = 
d8rjk(p 7tXovtio 1 Tim. 6. 17 (iv KaivöV>/Ti £a»/s R. 6. 4 = ev kollvij £u>7/, 
but cp. 7. 6) may be paralleled from the classical language (\Y. 
§ 34, 3). Further noticeable instances are rjfiepa opyrjs, o-toTrjptas, 
iTna-KOTrrjs etc. after Hebrew models R 2. 5, 2 C. 6. 2 O.T., 1 P. 
2. 12, also draSet^ews L. 1. 80, in which there is nothing remarkable 
but the Hebraic substitution of rjpepa for XP® 1 ' ' 5 (°* XP^ V0L T */ s 
aipeo-ews Aeschin. 2. 58): dvda-Tao-is {Wjs and Kpto-ews ' &> life' etc. 
Jo. 5. 29 (d. eis ^»i)v lxx. 2 Mace. 7. 14) : 6Sös edv5>v Mt. 10. 5, 68bv 
(a kind of preposition like """!", § 34, 8, note 1) 6aXdo-o~ri<s 4. 15 O.T. : 
instances with the meaning to, as rj 6vpa twv Trpoßdrcjv Jo. 10. 7, 
7ricrT€ws A. 14. 27 (but 6. tov Adyov Col. 4. 3 = a door by which the 
word enters), p,€ToiKeo-ia Ba/?vAwi/os Mt. 1. 11 f., 1) Stacnropd tHjv 
'EAA^i'iov Jo. 7. 35 : with the meaning among (from), kivSwoi Trorapuiv, 
krjo-Tiov 2 C. 11. 26, followed by e£ Wvwv, lv daXdo-o-y, etc. — To the 
gen. of content belongs among other instances Jo. 21. 8 to SUtvov 
tmv ixßvu>v (like class. 7rAota ctltov) ; to the gen. of apposition 
(Kühner Gr. ii. 2 226 d), i.e. where the genitive takes the place of 
a word in apposition with another, 2 C. 5. 5 tov dppaßwva tov 
7TV€iyi,aTos ('which consists in' etc.), R. 4. 1 1 o-rjp.€iov TrepiTop,rjs (TTfpiTopijv 
AC*), Jo. 2. 2 toG vaov tou aiopaTos uvtov, E. 4. 9 Ta KaTWTepa [/.te/ny] 
ttJs 77/s (not partitive, see Win. § 59, 8, but perhaps gen. of the 
thing compared) etc.; also 2 P. 2. 6 7roAets ~o86pwv kou Top.6ppas 
like 'IAiod 7roAtv Horn. II. 5, 642 etc. (this construction occurs here 
only in the N.T., since ttoAcws QvaTeipw A. 16. 14 is the gen. of 
7toAis QvaTecpa, like 7rdAci 'loTT-rnj 11. 5 ; cp. also 2 C. 11. 32 t-S)v 
7r6Xiv Aa/xao-KT]vwv, Ap. 3. 12, 18. io, 21, 21. 2, 10). — On the gen. 

1 M?7 tis (cttlv 4v iifiiv pifa &VW (pvovcra iv \o\ri Kai iriKpia ; but pifa iriKpias is read 
by cod. AF, and ivox^ri for ev x- by B*AF*, and this was the reading followed 
by the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews. 

§ 35- 5-6-] GENITIVE. 99 

with adjectives and participles used substantially see § 47, 1. — 
The gen. is used predicatively (supra 2 and 4), denoting quality, 
in Mc. 5. 42 i/v irwv SwSexa, L. 2. 42 ore eyevero irwv SwSexa (D is 
different), 1 H. 12. II irao-a iraiSeia ov Soxet ;(apas «Vat, aAAu AiV))?. 

6. As in classical Greek, there is nothing to prevent two genitives 
of different meaning from being connected with a single substantive : 
2 C. 5. 1 v) eVryeios rjpwv oik to. tov o-k^vovs, possessive gen. and gen. 
of apposition, Ph. 2. 30 to vpv (subjective) vo~Tepi]p.a t% -pds pe 
AeiToi'pyias (objective), Ap. 7. 17, 2 P. 3. 2 t?js tcov a7rocrTd Aa>v vfiQv 
('apostles sent to you') e'vToAvys tov Kvpiov ko.1 o-iorfjpos (closely with 
dTroo-T. ' sent from etc. to '). 2 In most cases, however, if several 
genitives stand together, one of them is dependent on the other, 
a practice through which writers, especially St. Paul, are occasionally 
brought to a really burdensome accumulation of words : 2 C. 4. 5 
tov (fnoTLo-fibv tov evayyeAiou ('which proceeds from the gospel') ttjs 
oo'£?7s (content) tov Hpio-rov, E. 1. 6 eis e7raivov Sd^s (a single idea, 
cp. Ph. 1. 17 eis S6£av kcu «rcuvov) tt}s xapiTos avrov, 3 4. 13 eis p.eTpov 
■rjXiKias tov TrXqpixtparos tov XpicrTOv, 1. 18, 19, Col. 2. 12, 1 Th. 1. 3 
t?)s iyiropovrjs rqs eA7ri8os (supra 3) tov nvpiov ?;pwv; 4 Ap. 14. 8 Ik 
tov oiVov tov Ovpov (supra 5) tt;s iropveias avrrjs, unless tov dvpov 
should be removed from this passage and from 18. 3 (with Griesbach) 
as an interpolation from 14. 10, 16. 19 to 7tott;oioi/ tou oiVov tov 
Bvpov t?]S opyrjs avrov (avrov om. w), 19. 15 Tip' A^vov tov 01'vov tov 
dvpov tyjs opyijs tov deov. The last genitive of the series is usually 
a possessive (Buttm. 136). In order that some clue may be left for 
the understanding of the construction, it is necessary (and also in 
conformity with Hebrew precedent) that the governing genitive 
should always stand before the dependent genitive, while in the 
case where two genitives are dependent on a single noun, one is 
placed before and the other after the noun, see the instances given 
above (Buttm. 135 f.). It has further been maintained (ibid. p. 
294 f.), that in a case where a genitive without the article dependent 
on a preposition governs another genitive, the former must always 
occupy the first place : in the same way that a word in any case 
without an article usually, though not always (Mt. 13. t>Z €ts «^«i'pov 
0-6.T0. Tpla) precedes the genitive which it governs. Exceptions 
however must be admitted in the former case as well ; Mt. 24. 31 

1 Here also belongs Ap. 21. 17 (fjieTprjaev to reixos avrrjs eKarbv - tttjxuv, - 
' amounting to 100 cubits,' cp. ibid. 16. 

2 However, there is so much obscurity and harshness in this passage that 
one is justified in supposing some corruption of the text (ttjs <5t<x> twv Lttout. 1 
cp. the Syriac). 

3 DE read tt)s 55£?7S, which would necessitate the rendering ' the praise of 
the glory of His grace'; cp. 1. 12 eh ?ar. (ttjs add. A) ö6|t?s avrov, 14 eis eV. tt)s 
(ttjs om. Ü) 56£?7S avrov. 

4 Here further, the possessive vpwv is dependent on the first of the two geni- 
tives in each case Zpyov, kövov, virofiovrjs, according to the prescribed rule (see 
below in the text) ; but the Western and Syriac mss. put this v/jlQv after wiareus, 
and some of these also make the sentence much smoother by reading the ace. 



fiera crd\Tnyyos </>covi/s /xeyaA?/s, if the reading is correct, 1 means 
'with a loud trumpet-sound' (cp. H. 12. 19, Ap. 1. 10, 4. 1, 8. 13), 
and 2 C. 3. 18 d-rrb kvolov irvtvpaTos 'from the spirit of the Lord,' 
cp. verse 17. 2 Also ßa-n-TLo-ptou SiSa^s H. 6. 2 (unless B is right in 
reading SiSa^/v) can only mean ' teaching of baptisms.' 


1. The genitive is used in Greek in connection with verbs in a 
series of instances where the partitive meaning is obvious. In the 
N.T. this partitive genitive with verbs is replaced, even more fre- 
quently than in the other cases mentioned (§ 35, 4), by a periphrasis 
with a preposition (or the use of another case). It is true that 
/xeraXafißdvav 'to partake of always has the gen. (A. 2. 46, 27. 33 f., 
2 Tim. 2. 6, H. 6. 7, 12. 10; the verb has a different meaning in 
the combination Kaipov peTaXaßiov A. 24. 25 = Polyb. 2, 16. 25 = 'to 
get [an opportunity] later'); so also [UTkyzw in 1 C. 9. 12, 10. 21, 
H. 2. 14, 5. 13, 7. 13, though per. Ik is found as well in 1 C. 10. 17, 
and just as these constructions with the gen. are limited to Luke, 
Paul, and Hebrews, so Koiviovdv tivos only appears in H. 2. 14, while 
Paul, Peter, and John say Koivtovdv tlvl (using the dat. not only 
of the person as in classical Greek, but also of the thing as in 
P. 15. 27 rots 7rvev[xaTiKoi<; clvtwv eKOLVtovrjcrav to Wvq, cp. 1 Tim. 
5. 22, 1 P. 4. 13, 2 Jo. 11 j R. 12. 13 holds an intermediate position), 
or else KOLvtovdv tlvl (person) eV tlvl G. 6. 6, or ci's Ao'yoy Socrews kcu 
Avy/xi/'ews Ph. 4. 15. MeTaStodvat never has the genitive, but the 
accusative, if it is the whole which is imparted R. 1. 11, 1 Th. 2. 8 
(the classical usage is analogous), elsewhere only the dat. of the 
person ; peTdvaL is unrepresented ; 6 e'^wv /xepos iv — (of the 
thing) occurs in Ap. 20. 6. But the greater number of the con- 
structions which come under this head — to take of, to bring, eat, 
drink of etc. — have been lost to the genitive, and are expressed 
by €K or u7to : L. 20. IO divb tod Kapirov 8100- over lv,' 3 Mc. 12. 2 iVa 
Xdßy d-rro tlov Kapirtav (only in A. 27. 36 do we have TrpoweXdßovTo 
TpocjiTjs [with many var. lect.], like yeveo-dai, vide infra; beside which 
ibid. 33 /i,)/S«v Trpoo-XaßopevoL is correctly used to indicate not the 
whole but the part), Jo. 21. 10 ei/ey/caTe cnro tiov dipapLiov, 1 C. 11. 

2 8 CK TOU dpTOV €(t6l(TIO, Jo. 4. 14 OS U.V TTLIJ CK TOV uSoTOS (aS Well aS 

kadULv tl, where the object consists of the whole, Mc. 1. 6 eo-#iW 
d/v-pi'Sas koX peXi dypLov, like Aristoph. Eq. 604 i"]o-8lov 81 toi>? 
7rayoi'poi>s ; 1 C. 8. 10 to el8(oX60vTa IcrdieLV, cp. 7, Ap. 2. 14, 20, i.e. 

1 <l>wvrjs is wanting in S*L etc., D al. have a. kox (fxav. pey. 

2 The Vulgate has a domino spiritu (Tertullian indeed reads a domino 
spirihium). There might also appear to be an irregular order of words in the 
reading given by Origen (in Matt. torn. xiv\ 14) in 1 C. 2. 4 : ovk ei> ireidol uocplas 
\bywv, dXV iv äirodel^ei wi>evfi.aTos öwd/uews. But cp. with the last words TrveOfia 
Trjs wiarews 2 C. 4. 13, wv. crcxpLas ko.1 äiroKaXvrpews E. 1. 1 7 etc. 

3 The use with the simple gen. in Ap. 2. 17 t£ vikovvti 5ticrw at/ry rod (so AC; 
to B, €K tov S) fiävva rod K€Kpi<fj./jLevov is not authentic. 

§36-1-2.] GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. 101 

meat which comes from sacrifices; 1 C. 10. 18 01 ardiovTes ras 
Ova-Las, which they consume in common). 1 Of verbs of cognate 
meaning to these, xop T<i £«v ' to satisfy ' (vulgar word for Kopzvvvvai, 
see Athenaeus iii. 99 e) has the genitive Mc. 8. 4, the passive 

-a^ecrdat, Only has otto, €K L. 15. 16, 2 16. 21, Ap. 19. 21, Kop«'vvvcr0cu 

(literary language) has the gen. A. 27. 38 ; ytieo-Qou has the gen. in 
yeveo-dai Mt. 16. 28 etc., H. 2. 9, rov Seiwi'ov L. 14. 24, 
firjSevbs A. 23. 14, ttjs Swpeas H. 6. 4 : on the other hand the ace. 
in Jo. 2. 9 to vSwp, H. 6. 5 6eov pr}pa, not a classical but most 
probably a popular usage. The phrase tyw crov övai^v Philem. 20 
(the word only occurs here) 3 is derived from the literary language ; 
äiro\<ui€iv is unrepresented ; <j>€£ always has the gen., but is 
limited to Luke (A. 20. 29), Paul (R. 8. 32 and passim) and 2 Peter 
(2. 4 f.). 

2. Closely related to a partitive genitive is the gen. Avith verbs 
of touching and seizing. Of this we have the following N.T. 
instances : &7TTeo-0ai Mt. 8. 4 and frequently in the Gospels (in John 
only in 20. 17 besides 1 Jo. 5. 18; in the Epistles besides the last 
passage quoted only in 1 C. 7. 4, 2 C. 6. 17 O.T. ; never in Acts), 
KaGdirreiv A. 28. 3, 0iyydv€i.v (literary language) H. 11. 28, 12. 20; 
4m\aji.ßdv6a-0ai Mt. 14. 31, Mc. 8. 23, Luke passim, 1 Tim. 6. 12, 19, 
H. 2. 16, 8. 9 O.T., 'to lay hold on any one (anything)': also with 
the part expressed in the gen., Mc. 8. 23 eViAaßoyuei'os rrjs x^P^ t °v 
tu<£Aou, 4 so that the correct construction is in all cases the gen.; 5 
on the other hand, Kpardv ' to seize,' ' to hold ' (Hellenistic) has 
the whole in the accus, as in Mt. 14. 3 KpaT^o-as 1-01/ 'Iwavnv, and 
the gen. is confined to the part which one seizes on, Mt. 9. 25 
£Kp6.TY)<T€ rrjs \eipus (rrjv X e W a D) a-vrfjs, Mc. 1. 31 (not D), 5. 41 
(t?)v x^P a D), L. 8. 54 («paTetv Tiva tivos is not found except in 
Mc. 9. 27 according to A al., where «BD read as in the other 
passages) : in metaphorical sense, ' to hold fast to,' ' lay hold on,' 
with gen. (probably due to the use of Kpareiv 'to get the mastery of 
with gen. in the literary language) H. 4. 14, 6. 18. Luke also says 
mdo-as (vulgar word = Aa/?wv) avrbv t^s x ei /°° s A. 3. 7, like Aayßwv 
UoXvgevypy x € pos Eurip. Hec. 523. In addition to these we have 

1 Still in many places a classical writer would have employed the gen. where 
the ace. occurs in the N.T., as in Jo. 6. 53 ^<xe jUtj (päy^re rr\v aäpKa rod viou rov 
dvd. Ktxl iririre avrov to alfj.a, cp. the use of the ace. in 54, 56, 57 with rpwyeiv, a 
verb which in the N.T., as in classical Greek, never takes the gen., but which 
a classical writer would not have used in this connection. 

2 There is a v.l. in APQ al. yepio-ai tt)v KoCkiav aürov airb, cp. infra 4. 

3 Oi/rws ovaifjLi)v tQv t€kvuu Aristoph. Thesm. 469 ; on the other hand, apart 
from these combinations with the gen. of the person, the use of äirö with this 
verb is found as early as Plato, Charmid. 175 e cLtto ttjs o-u<ppoavvrjs. 

4 The reading of D \aß6/j.evos ttjv x e 'P a T °v T - i s neither in the style of classical 
(Plato Parmen. ad init. rrjs x €l P° s ) nor N.T. Greek (which never has the middle 

5 It is only in appearance that emXafiB. seems to be used with accus, as well : 
in A. 9. 27 (cp. 16. 19, 18. 17) ewtXaßößevos avrbv rjyayev, the avrov is dependent 
on ijyayev, and avrov must be supplied with eiriKaß. (L. 23. 26 eTn\aßo/j.a>oi 
~Si/Awv& nva NBCDLX must be a wrong reading instead of Si^wvos n.v 0% AP al. ). 

102 GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. [§36.2-4. 

with the gen.: ?x €<r ® ai (met.) H. 6. g to Kpuo-o-ova ko.1 k\6jxeva 
cruiTrjpias (' connected with,' • leading to salvation ') and dvT«x«o-eai 
(met.) Mt. 6. 24, L. 16. 13 tov Ivös dvde^erai 'to attach oneself to,' 
'hold to,' Tit. 1. 9 (similar meaning), 1 Th. 5. 14 avrexeo-Oe twv 
ao-Oevwv ('to assist'), like dvTi\ap.ßdveo-0ai (met.) L. 1. 54, A. 20. 35 
('to assist,' as in lxx. and Hellenist. Greek ; but in oi rr/s evepyecrias 
dvTtXafj.ßav6ixevoi 1 Tim. 6. 2 ' to attain,' 'to partake of). 

3. The gen. with verbs of attaining (cp. dvTLXap.ßdveo-Oat supra 2 
ad fin.) only remains in some isolated instances in the more cultured 
writers. TVyxdveiv nvos L. 20. 35 (tvx^v is absent in Latin mss.), 
A. 24. 3, 26. 22, 27. 3, 2 Tim. 2. 10, H. 8. 6, 11. 35, €mTv Y xdv€iv 
tlvos H. 6. 15, 11 ^^, but in R. 11. 7 tovto ovk lirervx eu is read by 
all the standard mss. (so ovSev Herrn. Mand. ix. 5, but t>}s 7T0u£ea»s 
x. 2. 4, cp. on the classical use of the neut. pron. or adj. Kühner 
ii. 2 301, note 9). Atryx^veiv takes the gen. only in appearance in 
L. 1. 9 (tov dvpnao-ai = dvfi., § 71, 3), the ace. in A. 1. 17, 2 P. 1, 1 
(which is also more frequent in classical Greek than the gen.) ; 
K\r]povo|x€tv only the ace. Mt. 5. 5 etc. (Hellenistic, Phrynich. p. 129 ; 
Attic has the gen.) ; «juKveio-ocu is followed by a preposition 2 C. 
10. 13 f. — Verbs of desiring and striving after: eiueup-eiv takes the 

gen. in A. 20. t,^ 1 Tim - 3 - x > but tne acc - in Mt - 5 - 28 in BDE etc - 1 
(ai'T»)s is hardly attested, the case is wanting in N* and some fathers), 
elsewhere it takes the inf. or is used absolutely ; opty-a-Gat with gen. 
1 Tim. 3. 1, 6. 10, H. 11. 16, as also 6p.€ipeo-9<u ( = i/xei'o.) 1 Th. 2. 8; 
eiriiro0€iv is transitive as in classical Greek, so also contrary to 
classical usage are iruvav, Siipdv, § 34, 2. 

4. The genitive after 'to be full,' 'to fill' has been better preserved.\dvcu, «(nrwrXdvai (the former only in Gospels and Acts, the 
latter also in R. 15. 24) always take the gen., Mt. 22. 10, L. 1. 53 
etc.; irXtipoOv takes a gen., L. 2. 40 TrX.ypovfji.evov o-ocf>tas (-in. n c BL, vide 
inf.), A. 2. 28 O.T. (with acc. for v.l. as also in the lxx.), 5. 28, 
13. 52, R. 15. 13 (BFG TrXy]po(fiOpi]aai iv \lv om. FG] irdo-y x a P?> vide 
inf.), 15. 14, 2 Tim. 1. 4: and also e« (partitive, supra 1) Jo. 12. 3 
(B €7rA?/crö>/) : the pass, takes the dat. R. 1. 29, 2 C. 7. 4, cp. § 38, 1, 
or kv E. 5. 18, but Col. 2. IO kv ai'rw (Xpio-np) TreTrXiipwp.evoi' 2 is 
different: cp. also for the active R. 15. 13 supra: with the acc. 
(supra § 34, 6) Ph. 1. 11, cp. Col. 1. 9 : yipav with gen. Mt. 23. 27 
and passim, also Ap. 4. 6, 8 etc. (ibid. 17. 3 yep-ovra [ye/xov] 6v6p,aTa 
ßXao-(f)i]p.ias is a solecism) ; so ■yciitStiv Mc. 15. 36 (7rA?/o-as D), Jo. 2. 7, 
6. 13 ?, 3 Ap. 15. 8, with Ik L. 15. 16 v.l. (cp. supra 1), Ap. 8. 5, cp. 
irXypovv supra. Under this head may also be brought ßdirTuv to 

1 So frequently in LXX.: Exod. 20. 17 ovk eiridvß^creis ttjv ■yvvaiKo. k.t.X., 
Deut. 5. 21 etc. (Winer), Herrn. Vis. i. 1. 4, Sim. ix. 9. 7 (with gen. Sim. ix. 
13. 8). 

2 Probably ' fulfilled ' = 'perfect,' cp. 4. 12 r^Keiot Kai wew\ripo<pop-qijAvoi (D C E 
ill. irtTT\r)pijiu.ivoi.) iv iravrl 6e\r)/j.a.Ti tov deov. 

3, Eytfj.t<rai> SwdeKa KO<pivovs KXaap-druv (k tQiv wivre dpruv k.t.X. ; we might 
correct Ko<p. /cXacrjudruH' as in L. 9. 17, cp. also k6<P<.vov Koirpiwv L. 13. 8 D. 


aKpov tov SaKTvXov liSaTos (vSari N) L. 16. 24, 1 and perhaps 7rep«nreu€iv 
apr(Dv L. 15. 17 (Lucian, not class.), cp. Keiir&rdai tlvos infra 9. 

5. Of verbs denoting perception, alo-edv€<r6ai only appears once 
(L. 9. 45) and there with the ace. of the thing (currd, 'to understand ' 
= crvvicvai ; on the classical use of aUrß. « see Kühner ii. 2 309); with 
TTvv0dve<r6ai, Mt. 2. 4 [not D], Jo. 4. 52 [not B] the person is expressed 
by Trayoa, with arvviivai it is nowhere expressed. Thus the on\y 
remaining verb which takes the gen. is dxowiv («raKoveiv 2 C. 6. 2 O.T. 
takes the gen.: also «mKpodo-Oai A. 16. 25 ; v-n-aKoveiv takes the dative). 
With this verb the person, whose speech one hears, regularly stands 
in the gen. (as in classical Greek), while the thing, concerning which 
one hears tell, stands in the ace. (as does also the person in a similar 
case, as in E. 4. 21 rjKovcraTe oujtov). It is not an essential difference 
that the person may also be introduced by Trapd Jo. 1. 41 and passim 
(classical), and occasionally by cbrd (unclassical, A. 9. 13, 1 Jo. 1. 5) 
or, with Hebrew phraseology, aVb (Sid, £k) toC ord/m-rds twos 
L. 22. 71, A. 1. 4 D, 22. 14. But there remains some common 
ground for the use of genitive and accusative. ' To hear a sound ' 
in classical Greek is aico-ikiv (poivrjs, ßoyjs etc.; but in the N.T. we 
have both o.k. <pu>vrjs and (pwvqv, the former being used in St. John's 
Gospel in the sense of 'to obey' (5. 25, 28, 10. 3, 16 etc.), the latter 
in the sense of mere perception (3. 8, 5. 37), while in the Acts and 
the Apocalypse both constructions occur indiscriminately with the 
latter meaning: ace. A. 9. 4, 22. 9, 14, 26. 14 (gen. E), Ap. 1. 10, 
4. 1 etc. (also 2 P. 1. 18); gen. A. 9. 7, 11. 7 (ace. D), 22. 7, 
Ap. 14. 13, 16. 1, 21. 3 (3. 20 'to obey'), as also H. 3. 7, 15 O.T., 
12. 19. 'To hear words' admits of both constructions in classical 
Greek also; the N.T. generally uses the ace, but the gen. in 
Jo. 7. 40, 12. 47, 19. 13 (with v.l., cp. 8). The following are used 
correctly, o-revay/xov A. 7. 34, (rvp-cpoivias xal x°P^ v I*. 15. 25 ; 
the following are doubtful, rr/v o-ocpiav ^aAo//,wvos Mt. 12. 42, 
L. 11. 31, -n/v ßXacr <£>■>] fiiav Mt. 26. 65, TTjs ßkao-<pi]p.ia<s Mc. 14. 64 
(acc. ADG), töv do-irao-fiov L. 1. 41 ; A€yovTa(s) Ap. 5. 13 is wrong 
(kaXovvras A. 2. 6 D). — It is probably only in appearance that the 
verb takes a double gen. in passages like A. 22. 1 dKovo-are (jlov tt)s 
~pbs i'/xas a7roAoytas (Jo. 12. 47 al.; Herrn. Mand. xii. 5, cp. pov ras 
evToAd? Sim. ix. 23. 2), since p-ov belongs to cnroAoytas, the pronoun 
being similarly placed in Jo. 9. 6 eirkxpio-ev avrov tov 7r?;Abv «ri toi>s 
o(pda\p.ovs.— , Oo-(ppaiveo-8ai appears nowhere, and d£eu' is not found 
with a case that more nearly defines it (the gen. with the latter verb 
is of course of a different character to the gen. with the former); but 
on the analogy of d£eiv, Trvelv, twos 'to smell of something' 
we have in A. 9. I «jxirvewv a7reiAijs koI (povov (lxx. Jos. 10. 40 iräv 
ep.irveov £<<j7js). 

6. To remember, to forget. Mi(ivTjo-Kear9ai H. 2. 6 O.T., 13. 3) 
together with its aorist and perfect always takes the gen. (on 

1 The lxx. uses diro Levit. 14. 16 (Buttm. 148) ; the classical instances of 
ßdirreadal tivos (Arat. 650 etc., Buttm. ibid.) are formed on the analogy of 
Xovecrdai twos in Homer. 


1 C. 11. 2 f. see § 34, 3) ; also |ivT)p.ov€V£i.v for the most part, but the 
ace. in Mt. 16. 9 (D is different), Jo. 15. 20« (rbv Aoyov), D (tovs 
Xoyovs) instead of tov \6yov (gen. in 16. 4 [om. « ca D], 21), 1 Th. 2. 9, 

2 Tim. 2. 8, Ap. 18. 5 (Herrn. Vis. i. 3. 3, ii. 1. 3) : with nepl ('to 
make mention') H. 11. 22 (15 gen.): classical usage corresponds to 
this, both cases being used ; ävap.i|ivfjo-K€iv and -ecr#cu take ace, 
Mc. 14. 72, 1 C. 4. 17, 2 C. 7. 15, H. 10. 32 (class, ace. and more 
often gen.); {nrop.ip.vT]o-K€tv and -ecrOai take ace. in Jo. 14. 26, 

3 Jo. 10 (2 Tim. 2. 14 ravra virofjLifAvycrKe is different, the ace. being 
that of the inner object), gen. in L. 22. 61, and -n-epl 2 P. 1. 12. 
'Em\av8dv«o-9ai with gen. only occurs in H. 6. 10, 13. 2 (ace. «*), 16 ; 
similarly «K\av0. ibid. 12. 5; liriXavd. takes ace. in Ph. 3. 14 (as 
occasionally in classical Greek). 

7. There are but few remaining instances of the genitive with 
verbs expressing emotion. The cause of the emotion (after opyiteo-dai, 
6a.vp.afav, ekeeiv etc.) never stands in the gen.; the Hebraic verb 
<nr\a^\vllt(r9ai-e Aeeü'(from o-7rAay y_i/o, = E^fH) probably only appears 
to be followed by the gen. of the person pitied in Mt. 18. 27 1 (else 
where it takes iiri Tira or eiri tivi, rtvos). 'Avi\ta-Qai ' to bear 
with,' however, takes the gen. throughout in the N.T. as elsewhere, 
vfmv Mt. 17. 17 etc. Mi\a takes the gen. in 1 C. 9. 9, but DEFG 
read irepl twv ßowv, which is also the construction in Mt. 22. i6 = Mc. 
12. 4, Jo. 10. 13, 12. 6, 1 P. 5. 7 (not unclassical) ; in A. 18. 17 ovSev 
tovtodv rut TaAAiWi ZpeXtv the construction is probably personal as 
often in classical Greek (01'SeV being nominative and tovtwv partitive). 

Still we have €mjj.e\6io-8cu Tti'os L. 10. 34 f., 1 Tim. 3. 5 ; djieXäv Tti'OS 

1 Tim. 4. 14, H. 2. 3, 8. 9 O.T.; irpovoeio-0cu 1 Tim. 5. 8; liepip-vdv 
Mt. 6. 34 with eavTrjs nP> etc., to lavr^s EK, perhaps eavrg should 
be read from the Lat. sibi (Td -n-epl vpwv Ph. 2. 20, vTrep twos 
1 C. 12. 25). 

8. The following verbs of ruling (excelling) take the genitive : 
&px«lv Mc. 10. 42, R. 15. [2 O.T., Kvpicvav L. 22. 25, R. 6. 9 etc., 
KarciKupievciv Mt. 20. 25, Mc. 10. 42 etc. (for KttTf^oi'rrta'^eti' ibid, vide 
inf. 10), av0€VT6iv 1 Tim. 2. 12, fjyepoveveiv, TtTpap-^dv, dvdnraTeveiv 
L. 2. 2, 3. 1, A. 18. 12 (v.l.), KaTaSwao-Ttveiv Ja. 2. 6 n c BC al., but 
vpas is read by N*A like Karaßpaßivew rtvd etc., § 34, 1 ; on «pa-reiv 
vide supra 2. But ßacriXeveiv no longer governs the genitive, except 
in Mt. 2. 22 Tv}s 'lovSalas «B (the rest read ewl tv]s 'I. as often in the 
lxx.), elsewhere («Vt tv}s yr/s Ap. 5. 10 = 'on earth ') it takes act rtva 
L. 1. 33, 19. 14, 27, R. 5. 14, after Hebrew precedent (23? "^ , ?)- 
On rjTToio-dat, see 8 37, 4. Verbs denoting excellence : wepßdXXeiv 
Ttvos E. 3. 19 (so Plat. Gorg. 475 B, the usual classical construction 
is the ace. or absolute, as in N.T. 2 C. 3. 10, 9. 19), virtpixav twos 
Ph. 2. 3, but Tivd (also classical) 4. 7. Here also, therefore, we only 
find remnants of the old usage ; especially is this the case with the 
gen. of the thing after verbs of accusing etc., of which the only 

1 ~Tr\ayxvicr0fis de 6 Kvpios tov dovXov tKeivov 'the lord of that slave.' 

§ 36. 8-9.] GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. 105 

instance which can be adduced is kyKaXela-dai o-Tao-ews A. 19. 40, and 
this is contrary to Attic usage (eyKaXeiv nvl re, but nvi nvo% in 
Plutarch Aristid. 10), elsewhere kyx.. and KplvecrBaL (pass.) take 7repi 
tivos A. 23. 29, 6 etc. (Attic) ; for the dat. instead of gen. of the 
punishment see § 37, 2. — The gen. of price is still used with 
verbs of buying and selling, thus Mt. 10. 29 dao-apiov ^wAcn-ai 26. 9, 
A. 5. 8 etc.; also avp<pwvdv (to agree) tyvaplov Mt. 20. 13, but «k Srjv. 
ttjv rjfjiepav ibid. 2, 1 cp. for the same periphrasis for this gen. dyopdfav 
eK Mt. 27. 7, KTaa-Oai €K A. 1. iS ; see further L. 16. 9 (on the use of 
ev see § 41, 1) ; a kindred use is äjjiovv («ara^ow) tivos 2 Th. 1. 5, 11, 
1 Tim. 5. 17, H. 3. 3, 10. 29 ; but 'to exchange for' is expressed by 
uXXd^ai rt kv R. 1. 23 (after the lxx. Ps. 105. 20), cp. 25 p.€TaXXd(T- 
<T€iv ev, 26 peraXX. ets (unclassical, although the gen. with per. is 
also absent from classical Greek; in Plat. Tim. 19 A per. eis means 
' to bring over to another place '). 

9. Of verbs which contain the idea of separation, the following are 

found with the gen.: diraMoTpiovv E. 2. 12, 4. 18, dirocrrepeio-Gai 
1 Tim. 6. 5, with v.l. d-Trzcnpappkvwv dirb (D*), cp. 2 Tim. 4. 4, 
äa-Toxäv 1 Tim. 1. 6 (with Trepu rt 6. 21, 2 Tim. 2. 18), 8ia<j>e'p«v 'to 
differ' Mt. 6. 26 etc., kmXvciv nvd tivos 'to hinder from' (Xenoph. 
Polyb.) A. 27. 43 (elsewhere k. Tiva, k. ti, also after Hebrew example 
KwXveiv ti cbro tivos L. 6. 29, ' to refuse,' as in lxx. Gen. 23. 6), 
XsiVeo-Gai ' to lack' Ja. 1. 5, 2. 15 (ev /rrcfovi 1. 4 'in no respect'), cp. 
7reptcrcreiJ€tv tivos, supra 4, waveo-Oai 1 P. 4. 1 7re7TGUTat upaprias (ibid. 
3. IO O.T. iravetv rivd arro ; dva7roaW#cu Ik as in class. Greek Ap. 14. 
13, KareTravcrev [intrans.] (ittu H. 4. 4 O.T.. 10) dp^eadai Ttvos does not 
occur. vo-T£p€iv 'to be inferior to' (cp. vo-repos) 2 C. 11. 5, 12. 11: 'to 
lack' L. 22. 35 : in the same sense io-Tepdo-Oai R. 3. 23 (with kv 
1 C. 1. 7, cp. supra XeiTno-dai : varepdv dirh ' to remain alienated 
from ' = 'to lose' H. 12. 15 [lxx. Eccl. 6. 2], cp. avi>o-Te/»/Tos obre 
Herrn. Mand. ix. 4); &ire'xeo-8ai 'to abstain' A. 15. 29, 1 Tim. 4. 3, 

1 P. 2. 11 (in A. 15. 20 the reading varies between the simple gen. 
and cnro ; with goto 1 Th. 4. 3, 5. 22) : dirt'x^v 'to be distant' L. 7. 6 
K*D (v.l. with diro, as in 24. 13 etc.); xPTll« 1 " Mt. 6. 32, L. 11. 8 
(oo-wv, ö'o-oi' n c DE al.), 12. 30, R. 16. 2, 2 C. 3. 1. To these may be 
added Ssto-Gai tivos ' to ask ' Mt. 9. 38, Luke passim (for which 7rpos 
Tiva is used in A. 8. 24, cp. evxopai 7rpos 2 C 13. 7, Aeyoj 7T/3os), 

2 C. 8. 4, G. 4. 12 ; irpoa-Seio-ecu ' to need' only in A. 17. 25. Quite 
peculiar is the use of the gen. in ov ßpaSvvei Kvpios rrjs eVayyeA/as 
2 P. 3. 9, 'hesitates and refrains from accomplishing it.' But in 
other cases separation is expressed by d-rro or <=£ (classical Greek uses 
the simple gen. as well) : with \inpi(eiv, Xveiv, Xvrpovv, iXev9epovv, 
pveo-8ai, o-w£eiv, Kadapl^eLV, Aoi'etv ; with p.€0icrrdvcu L. 16. 4 there are 

1 Unless this e/c has a distributive meaning, as in Attic inscriptions (Meister- 
hans' Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, p. 173. 2) ; KpiB&v ... irpadeLawv «k rpiCiv 
opaxßijjv tov /j.edifivov eKaarov, where an apparently irregular ace. is arhled in the 
same way as in Mt. tt\v ijßepav. The same inscr. has elsewhere : irpadivTwv i£ 
opaxfJ-wv tov fjLedipivov e/cdcrroi' ; of course e£ !£ could not well lie said. In an- 
other instance : e£ 6ktw ößoXGiv tov o-TaTr/pa, the ace. likewise has no governing 
verb ('eight oboli being reckoned for each stater'). 

io 6 GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. [§36.9-11. 

variant readings («k tt}s oikovo/jucxs nBD, LX with dV6, APR al. 
with the simple gen.). 1 

10. The following compound verbs take the gen. on the strength 
of the preposition : «nriVreiv in metaphorical sense (not in the literal) 
G-. 5. 4, 2 P. 3. 17 , the remaining instances are all compounds of 
Kcrrd (with the meaning 'against' or 'down over'; on the other 
hand, with the meaning ' down,' they take the ace, § 34, 1 ) : Kara- 
yeAav Mt. 9. 24 (D* cu'töV), Mc. 5. 40, L. 8. 53 ; KarayivuxTKeiv 
1 Jo. 3. 20 f. (/caTa8iKa£«i' tu'os is classical, in the N.T. it only takes 
the ace, Mt. 12. 7, also Ja. 5. 6) ; KaraKav-^aa-dai 'to boast oneself 
against' R. 11. 18, Ja. 2. 13 (KaraKplvnv always takes the ace; in 
Attic Tiros); Kcn-aAaAeü' Ja. 4. ii, 1 P. 2. 12 (Clem. Horn. xvi. 8, 
xix. 7 also has KCiTaAeyeiv Tiros 'to revile'); Karapaprvpelv Mt. 26. 62 
etc.; KaravapKav, a Pauline word, 'to be burdensome to' 2 C. 11. 8, 
12. 13; KaTao-Tpi]viav ' to wax wanton against' 1 Tim. 5. 11 ; Kcn-a- 
(j)poveiv Mt. 6. 24 etc.; KOLTOLxdv 'to pour over' takes the gen. in 
Mc. 14. 3 according to NBC al., other MSS. have Kara or hri with 
gen.: in Mt. 26. 7 it takes hri tivos or IttI n ; KaTe£ot'o-id£eiv (cp. 
supra 8) Mt. 20. 25 = Mc. 10. 42 ; Kar^yopdv passim. 

11. The use of the gen. as the complement of adjectives and adverbs 
is also, as contrasted with classical usage, very limited. The follow- 
ing instances occur: koivuvos, a-vyKoiv. tlvos (gen. of the thing) 2 C. 1. 7, 
1 P. 5. 1, R. 11. 17 (also with the gen. of the person, 'the companion 
of someone,' H. 10. 33, also 1 C. 10. 18, 20; beside which we have 
Kotvwi'ot rot ^.i'juoit L. 5. 10 [gen. D], cp. § 37, 3 and Koivwvetv, supra 1); 
[not Koivos tu'os, nor totos; Clem. Cor. i. 7. 7 has dAAöVpioi rod tfeor]; 
f«Toxos H. 3. 1, 14, 6. 4, 12. 8 ( = ' a companion of someone' 1. 9 O.T. ; 
cp. E. 5. 7 ?) ; <rvp.pop<pos rrjs «i'köVos R. 8. 29, i.e. 'a bearer of the 
image,' cp. § 37, 6 for the dat. (in avrepyos tlvos and similar cases 
with a personal gen. the adjective has become a substantive, cp. 
ibid.); £«vos ti^os 'estranged from a thing,' E. 2. 12 (Plat. Apol. 17 D; 
with dat. Clem. Cor. i. 1. 1) ; äireipao-ros kukwv 'untempted by/ 
Ja. 1. 13 (SO in classical Greek direipaTos tivos, dyewTos kcikwi' etc., 
Kühner ii.-' p. 344 f.) ; in &vo|ios deov - 2wo(i.os Xpcrrou 1 C. 9. 21 the 
gen. is dependent on v6po% (a peculiar and bold use, cp. § 28, 6) ; but 
<xo-7riAos is followed by oltto (Ik CP) Ja. 1. 27, as also ädioos Mt. 27. 24, 
K-aöapos A. 20. 26 (Demosth. 59. 78), cp. KaOapc^etv (xttu supra 9 ; 
/xeo-Tos Ttvos Mt. 23 28 etc., it\tjpt]s L. 4. 1 etc. (kcvos and lySeiJs are 
never found with gen., k. onrb Herrn. Mand. v. 7, xi. 4), cp. 'to fill' 
supra 4 ; &£ios, dvd£ios Mt. 3. 8, 1 C. 6. 2, etc., cp. gen. of price 

SUpra 8; ^vo\os Oavdrov Mt. 26. 66, Mc. 14. 64, al(oviov dpapri'/paTOS 

(d/zapTias, K-pto-cws) Mc. 3. 29, etc. (as well as the use with the dat., 
modelled on Ivtxea-dal rivt, Mt. 5. 21 f., which is the commoner 
classical construction ; ibid. 22 we also have evo\os eis rijv yUwav) ; 
8(aoios with gen. only in Jo. 8. 55 wCLX v/uuv, but is read by 
ABI) etc., cp. 9. 9, 1 Jo. 3. 2 and elsewhere in N.T. (the gen. is also 
classical but rare); dKoAoi'&x toi'twi' Heim. Mand. viii. 4. 10 

1 The reading in A. 19. 27 tcadaipeltrdat tt)s /xeyaXe iothjtos (NABE), instead of 
i) ueyaXtiÖTrjs ai)rjjs or aiirijs 77 fJ-ey., seems to be impossible. 

§ 36. 11-12.] GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. i y 

(classical). Adverbs: «yyvs with gen. Jo. 11. i8, E. 10. 8 O.T., 
H. 6. 8, 8. 13 etc., with dat. (rarely in classical, more often in late 
Greek) only A. 9. 38 eyyus ovcrrjs rrjs Ai'SSas rr; 'loirwr) (therefore 
with good reason), 27. 8 (the text of the passage is not quite certain); 
ir\r]<riov Jo. 4. 5, cp. L. 10. 29, 36 and 6 Tr\r)<rioi' aov Mt. 5. 43 etc.; 
Ivtos L. 17. 21, x «cTos 1 C 6. 18 etc.; e£o> Mt. 21. 39 etc. (not eo-cu, 
ea-ioOei', since 2 C. 4. 166 eo-w rj/Awv sc. ävOpMTTos should be taken like 
the preceding 6 e^w i)/xwv a. in the sense of 'our' etc.); «-irdvw 
Mt. 5. 14 etc., viTipavta E. 4. 10, vrroKciTco Mc. 6. 1 1 etc. (not avw, KO.roi); 
'<£\nrpo<r6ev Mt. 5. 16 etc., oirwrOtv Mt. 15. 23, L. 23. 26, 6ir£<ra> Mt. 3. 1 1 

etc.; irepav Mt. 4. 25 etc.; [«ireKeiva A. 7. 43 is a wrong reading] ; in 
addition to these x w pk H-^XP 1 * w s e ^c., see § 40, 6 ff. Prepositions. 
— The class of adjectives in -ikos, formed from verbs and taking the 
gen., which is so large in Attic Greek (Trapao-Ktvao-TiKos tivos and the 
like, Kühner ii.' 2 , p. 315) is entirely absent (SuSolktikos 1 Tim. 3. 2, 
2 Tim. 2. 24, but without case). We occasionally find verbal adjec- 
tives in -tos (in the sense of a perf. part, pass.) taking the gen., as 
also indeed the perf. part. pass, in its ordinary form, still this is due 
to the participle becoming a sort of substantive. Like Ü7rdo-roAos 
'h](TOv ( = ov aTrecrTuXKev Tryo-ous) one may also say ki<\eKTol deov 
E. 8. 33, Mt. 24. 31 etc.; äy<nrr]Tol 6eov E. 1. 7 ; cp. 6 aya7n/Tos fj-ov 
16. 5 etc., ol ay<nn]Tol rjpuJv A. 15. 25 (cp. Attic 6 epw/xei'ds Tivos) ; 
81801.KT0I deov Jo. 6. 45 O.T., cp. 1 C. 2. 13 ovk Iv StSaKTois dv6pwirivrj<i 
<To4>ia$ Aoyot?, dXX' iv SiSanTois Trvevp.o.To<; (classical parallels in 
Kühner, p. 322, e.g. Soph. El. 343), where, if Adyots be not spurious, 
StSaKTos has kept its adjectival character ; evkoy>ifj.evoi rov irarpös 
Mt. 25. 34; yevvi-jToi yvvaiKm' Mt. 11. II, L. 7. 28 (LXX. Job 14. 1); 
in kXtjtoi 'Itjo-ov, however, in E. 1. 6 the gen. is rather a gen. of the 
possessor, since the Person who gives the call is God rather than 
Jesus (Winer, § 30, 4). 2 A peculiar use is to d0i<rp\kvov (D Wos) rov 
vofjLov L. 2. 27. 

12. The genitive of comparison with the comparative (and with 
what remains of the superlative, cp. § 11, 3 ff.) is found as in the 
classical language ; and along with it (though this is much the rarer 
construction of the two, as it is in the earlier language) 3 is used the 
analytical expression with r/, particularly when the gen. could not 
well be employed or would not be sufficiently explicit (e.g. with an 
adj., cf)i\;)8ovoi /xaAAov 1) (f)tX66eoc 2 Tim. 3. 4, with a statement of time 
E. 13. 11, with an infinitive Mt. 19. 24, A. 20. 35 etc., with a gen. 
v'/xwi/ /iaAAov rj tov deov A. 4. 19, also with a dat. as in Mt. 10. 15, 

1 But in Mt. 23. 25 to taoiOev tov iroTrjpiov, 26 to evTos t. it. -to sktos aiiTod the 
genitive denotes the whole, as in L. 11. 39. 

2 The gen. in öeo-fuos tov Xpto-Tov E. 3. 1 (Paul has similar phrases elsewhere) 
is also equivalent to a gen. with a substantive, see on this phrase Winer § 30, 
2, Buttm. p. 147 (E. 4. 1 has 6 8eo-/juos ev Kvptui). 

3 0. Schwab, Hist. Syntax d. Gr. Comparation (Würzburg, 1894), ii. 92, 
reckons that the use of the gen. or fj after the comparative is in poetry in the 
proportion of 18 : 1, in Attic prose writers in the proportion of 5.5 : 1 ; in any 
later period the use of the former construction is more than three times greater 
than that of the latter. 

108 GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. [§36.12-13. 

A. 5. 29) ; it is seldom found without some such occasion for it 
(Jo. 3. 19 i)yäiri)(Tav /xdXXov to ctkotos 7} to (fxos, 4. I TrAaoras /xaÖ>/Tas 
7Totet ?) 'IwaVris 1 Jo. 4. 4, 1 C. 14. 5). 1 In addition to this periphrasis 
there is the periphrasis by means of a preposition : irapd nva (cp. 
classical passages like Thuc. i. 23. 3, which however are not entirely 
similar, so that the prep, could not be replaced by 1) ; - but in 
modern Greek Trapa or oVo is the regular means of expressing com- 
parison) L. 3. 13 —Xeov Trapa, to oiareray/xevov (18. 14 paAAov Trap' 
cKeivov I), without p. nBL, other mss. have the corrupt reading 1} yap 
l/ceivos), Hebr. passim, 1. 4 8ia<pop u>Tepoi' Trap' auTors, 3. 3, 9. 23, 
11. 4, 12. 24, Herrn. Vis. iii. 12. 1, Sim. ix. 18. 2 ( = more than, 
without a comparative, £ 43, 4) ; and vtrip two, (as in the case of 
Trapa, classical Greek only shows the beginnings of this use), L. 16. 8 
<l>poi'Lp.wTepoi v7T€p, Jo. 12. 43 fiRWov vTrep (rjrrep ABD al. is corrupt) 
H. 4. 12, A. 20. 35 v.l. (Herrn. Mand. v. 6 has ijrrep with the elative ; 
with comparative in elative sense VTrep irucrav dp.apTiau dvoLuorepovs 
Barn. 5. 9; also lxx. e.g. Judges 11. 25, see Winer). The word 
' than ' is omitted after irXziw and iXdcrcrwv before numerical state- 
ments (in Attic irkeiv l^aK-ocrtous Aristoph. Av. 1251 ; Lobeck Phryn. 
410 f.; 3 Lat. plus quingentos) : A. 4. 22 ctcüi/ TrAeioVcov Teo-crcpaKorTa, 
23. 13, 21, 24. 11, 25. 6, 1 Tim. 5. 9 xVP a PV «Aoittov ItcUv k^iJKoi'Ta;* 
also L. 9. 13 according to N* ovk e'urlv ijluv TrAetoves (other readings 
are TrAetov fj, irXkov ?}, with stereotyped ttAeov, cp. Kühner ii.- 847 f.) 
aproL Trevre, Mt. 26. 53 irXeiovs (K' : AC al. ; ttAcuo N*BD) ScoSe/ca 
(kBDL; 1) 8. AC al.) AeyttSvas (k c BD al.; -vwv N*AC al.) dyyeAwf ; 
instead of TrAetW Ave also have lirdv«) (vulgar) Mc. 14. 5 TrpaOijvat 
eirdvd) 8>)vapt(i)v TptaKocruov, 1 C. 15. 6 Ivrarco Trei'Ta/cocriots d8eX(pol<;. — 
Instances of looser employment of the genitive : Mt. 5. 20 edv p?) 
Trepi<T<Tc.v<rij 17 8iKaioo~vmj vp.wv TrAetov tum' ... <$>apio-aim' ( = than that 
of the Ph., yours is more in comparison with the Ph.); Jo. 5. 36 eyw 
€\(ü> rrjv LiapTvptav pe/(w too 'Iwaror, where it is ambiguous whether 
the meaning is ' than John had,' or ' than that given by John ' : in 
the latter sense, however, Lieifa 1) (B al. read /xet£wv) tow 'I. would be 
better. As Trepio-o-os and -oVepos have come to be used for TrAeiW 
($ 11, 4), Trepio-o-os also takes the gen.: Mt. 5. 37 to Trepio-o-ov tovtiov, 
E. 3. 20 v-eptKTrepio-o-ov wv k.t.A. — A stereotyped use of the neut. 
wavTtov to intensify the superlative appears in Mc. 12. 2S Troia io-rlv 
ivroXrj TrpioTi] irdvTwv (Tracjw is only read by M*al., but D it. omit 
TravTwi'), cp. Thuc. iv. 52. 3, Win. § 27, 6. 

13. Local and temporal genitive. There are a few remains of a 
local gen.: L. 5. 19 -oias (sc. u8ov, 'by which way') eicrerey kioctlv, 

1 In 1 Tim. 1. 4 iK^iyHiaeu Traptx m(n - V M-aWov 7) oiKodoniav 6eov the gen. would 
not have been in place, especially as ßaWov -q virtually has in this passage the 
force of a negative. 

2 For precise details on irapd see Schwab ii. 108 f., 152 f., on virtp 109 f., on 
prepositions generally 14!) ff. 

3 For details see Schwab 84 ff. 

1 The next word is yeyouvia, which some commentators attach to the follow- 
ing eV6s ävdpös ywri ; still even if it is connected with the preceding words, the 
usage remains the same, in spite of the Attic ('iKoaiv ir-q yeyovws, cp. § 34, S. 

§ 3 6. 13. § 37- 1.] DA T/VE. IO9 

19. 4 eKeivTjs (D Ikcivq) i"]pe\\ev 8iepxeo-6cu, which are incorrect, since 
the gen. in classical Greek denotes the whole area within which 
something goes on, just as the corresponding temporal gen. denotes 
the whole period of time within which something happens. 1 Of 
this temporal use the N.T. has the following examples : xet/xt3vos 
Mt. 24. 2o = Mc. 13. 18 'during the winter': ->]p.epas Ap. 21. 25 
'during the day,' 'in the day,' with v.l. •>//*. ko.1 vi-ktos, cp. Mc. 5. 5, 
L. 18. 7, A. 9. 24 etc. 'in the day as well as by night,' beside which 
we have vvkto. kclI rjp-epav 'all day and night long,' § 34, 8 (but 
Jo. 11. 9 lav Tis TrepnraTtj Iv ry i)pepa. 'by day,' cp. § 38. 4; 81a ttjs 
t)p.epas 'in the course of this day,' L. 9. 37 D) : vvktos Mt. 2. 14 etc., 
tt}? v. L. 2. 8 ('in this night'), for which we have Sta vvktos A. 5. 19 
(v.l. 81a t. v.), 16. 9, 17. 10, 23. 31, like per noctem ; Teo-crepaKovTa 
rjpepwv D* A. 1. 3 for 6V i)p,. Ticra: of nB etc. and with equivalent 
sense ('during' i.e. 'at intervals in that time,' see § 42, 1); t)p.epas 
piecryjs A. 26. 13, p.eo~rjs vvktos Mt. 25. 6, fieo-ovvKTiov, dXeKTopocfawi'tas 
Mc. 13. 35 (/xecrovi'/cTiov nBC al., cp. § 34, 8), opdpov ßadeuis L. 24. I 
(all these denoting a space of time, 'the middle part of the day ' etc., 
not 'a moment of time'), tov Xolttov (sc. \povov) G. 6. 17, E. 6. 10 
N*AB ' henceforth ' (classical ; a stereotyped phrase). With an 
adverb: Sts toi5 o-aßßdrov L. 18. 12 ('twice in the week'), aVa£ tov 
Ivlclvtov H. 9. 7, as in classical Greek. 

§ 37. DATIVE. 

1. In the use of the Greek dative a distinction must be made 
between the pure dative, which expresses the person more remotely 
concerned, the instrumental dative (and dative of accompaniment), 
and, thirdly, the local dative. Still this triple division cannot be 
applied with absolute clearness and certainty to all the existing 
usages. The functions of this case were in large measure, more so 
than those of the accusative and genitive, usurped by different 
prepositions, particularly kv and els; connected with this and with 
the disappearance of the use of the dative after prepositions, is the 
subsequent loss of the dative in modern Greek and the substitution 
for it of €is with the accusative. In the N.T., however, the case is 
still very largely employed. 

On the use of the dative as the necessary complement of the verb 
the following points may be noted. To give, to promise etc. : there 
is hardly any tendency to supplant the dat. (SeSo^ei'ov Iv... , § 41, 2 ; 
Herrn. Vis. i. 4. 8 et's to ß^piov ep,avTov eSwKa ; iii. 11. 3 Trape8a>KaT€ 
eavTovs et's tcxs aKTjStas is different, where els expresses the result, as 
in the N.T., B. 1. 24 etc. [although the dat. is found beside els in 
E. 4. 19]; Trapa8. els o-wk8pta Mt. 10. 17 etc. is also justifiable). To 
do good etc., to be profitable, to injure: dat. and ace. see § 34, 1 and 4; 

1 In classical Greek these must have been expressed by iroia, induy, cp. 
Xenoph. Aiiab. iii. 4. 37 x^piov v-repde^ov, rj ZßeWov oi"E\\r)ve$ irapieuai (therefore 
D is right in 19. 4, but in the other passage the whole of the evidence supports 
the gen. ). 

HO DATIVE. [§37-1- 

iv is also used in place of the dat., ibid. 4 : <n>|A<J>€'ptiv always takes the 
dat., Mt. 5. 29 etc. To serve (SovXeveiv Xarpeveiv SiaKOveiv vtti] perelv) 
always takes the dat.; also SovXovv 'to make a servant' 1 C. 9. 19 ; 
on Sovkova-Oat pass vide infra 4 ; irpoo-Kvveiv etc. take dat. and ace. 
§34, 1 ; TrpotTK. kvamiov twos L. 4. 7, Ap. 15. 4 is Hebraic, § 40, 7 ; 
so also dpeo-Kuv (elsewhere with nvi, like dpKelv and the adjectives 
ü/aeo-Tos, dpKtTos, Ixavos etc.) ei/üHTtov Ttvos A. 6. 5, dpeo-rus evioTT. tivos 
1 Jo. 3. 22. To show, to reveal take dat. always ((pacveiv 'to give 
light' Ap. 21. 23 [with iv m c ], k-n-upaivuv L. 1. 79), as also 'to seem' 
(SoKÜv, tpalvea-dai) ; on 4>avepovv kv and the like see § 41, 2. To say to 
is expressed, as in classical Greek, by nvi or irpos nva ; ev-^eo-Qai takes 
dat. A. 26. 29, and 7rpos Ttva 2 C. 13. 7, irpoo-€vx«cr6ai dat. only, Mt. 6. 6, 

1 C. 11. 13. To write, to announce take dat.; more striking and 
isolated cases of the dat. with verbs of speaking are : ö/rroXo-ysio-Bcu tw 
8^/zw A. 19. ^t„ so 2 C. 12. 19 (Lucian, Plut.) 'before or in the 
presence of anyone,' d-n-oTdo-o-eo-Sai 'to say farewell' Mc. 6. 46 etc. 
(Hellenistic, Phryn. Lob. 23 f.); Kavxä<r9ai 'to boast of before' 

2 C. 7. 14, 9. 2 ; b\io\oytiv nvi H. 13. 15, tw övo/zem avTov ' to praise,' 
like igofioXoydo-Oai, avdopioX., R. 14. II O.T., Mt. 11. 25, L. 2. 38, 
10. 21 (so also alvelre tw 6ei2 Ap. 19. 5, like lxx. Jerem. 20. 13 etc., 
Buttm. 153 note) ; ' to confess before anyone,' ' to anyone ' A. 24. 14, 
Mt. 7. 23 ( = 'to promise' A. 7. 17, with v.l. w/xoo-ev and eir^yyeiXaTo 
D; Mt. 14. 7; ono/xoA. ev see $ 41,2); »J/evSeo-Gat tw A. 5. 4 (lxx.; ibid. 3 
Tiva 'to deceive,' as in classical Greek). To blame etc.: eViTittai', 
eyxaXelv take dat. (lye. Kara Tivos R. 8. ^t,), KarapacrOai and /xl/x<£e- 
<r$ai take the dat. as a doubtful v.l., § 34, 2 ; ibid, on Trapacvetv 
evayyeXitevdai ; eirndo-o-eiv TTpoirräircreLV SiafTTeAAea-Öai etc. take dat. ; 
also KeXeveiv Ev. Petr. 47. 49, Herrn. Sim. viii. 2. 8. — ITeiGeo-Bcn, 

vTraKOveiv, dTTLcrrelv, dTretdelv take the USUal dat. ; but ireiroiGe'vai ' to 

trust in' besides the dat. (as in Ph. 1. 14) more often takes IV nvi, 
ort tlvi or Ttva, ei's Ttva, and so mo-Tev€i.v : with nvi passim, even in 
the sense 'to believe in,' as in A. 5. 14, 18. 8 tw Kvpu<>; with prep, 
'to believe in ' : IV tlvi only in Mc. 1. 15 Trio-revere iv tw evayyeXiu), 1 
eVi nvi 1 Tim. 1. 16, L. 24. 25 (ttlo-t. ora. D), Mt. 27. 42 EF al. 
(nBL It' auToi', AD atVw), R. 9. ^^ al. O.T., iirt two. A. 9. 42 etc., 
eis nva, eh to ovofid tivos etc, which is the commonest construction. 
Cp. Buttmann, p. 150 f. 2 — To be angry (also ep.ßpipo.o-da.1 Mt. 9. 30 
etc.; pLerpioTraOeiv tivl H. 5. 2 ; on /Aep.(f>eo-0ai, § 34. 2), to envy take 
the usual dat.; also to thank, to owe etc. — The adjectives belonging 
to these verbs are subjoined : dxf>eXipos Tit. 3. 8 (o~vp.<popov or 
o~vp.(pepov is used substantially with a gen., 1 C. 7. 35, 10. 33 ; 
viDTrjpios rii'L Tit. 2. 11), dpeo-ros upKeros lkolvos vide supra ; (f>avep6s 
A. 7. 13, 1 Tim. 4. 15 (v.l. with Iv), eix^avt)s A. 10. 40, R. 10. 20 
O.T., vttijkoos A. 7. 39, 7rto-T&s tw Kvpuo A. 16. 1 5, cp. H. 3. 2 

1 Jo. 3. 15 is different, where if iv clvtÜ) (B) is correct it must be taken in 
connection with Zxv i'^V"- 

2 'EXiri^eiu tlvi ' to hope in anyone ' (instead of e-n-i nva or tivl or eh nva ; rrj 
Ti'xr) iXiriaas Thuc. 3. 97) occurs only in Mt. 12. 21 in a quotation from Is. 42. 
4, where lxx. has iiri tlo : iv rip is read by D al. ; cp. § 5, 2, note 3. 

§37-1-3.] DATIVE. II r 

(1 P. 1. 2i et? Oeov AB, but « c al. read Tna-revovTas • generally 
absolute), direidys A. 26. 19 etc. (a7rio-Tos absolute), eVavrtos Mc. 6. 48 
etc. (with 77/jos Ti A. 26. 9) ; to these may be added the substantive 
o<^€iAeT7js elfu tivl R. 1. 14, 8. 12 (with gen. 15. 27 etc.). 

2. The dative is used in a looser manner (as in classical Greek) 
with various verbs to denote the person whose interest is affected 
(dativus commodi et incommodi). MapTvpeiv tlvl 'for anyone' 
L. 4. 22 etc., also 'against anyone' Mt. 23. 31 paprvpeiTe eavrols. 

"AvaTr\T)poÜTai ou'tois (D al. «V aiVois) y 7rpo<prjTeia L. 18. 31 (D has 

— ept with gen.). "EKpiva ipavToj tovto 2 C 2. 1 'for myself,' cp. 
Herrn. Mand. xii. 4. 6 creavrw KiKpiKas tou p.y Svvacrdai ras IvToAas 
Tai'ras <pv\a)(dyvai. Also pi] p.epi(ivaT£ ry ^XQ l V^" — Tw °~ w V jta- ''i 
vpC)v Mt. 6. 25 (L. 12. 22), 'for the life — for the body' (other con- 
structions in § 36, 7) ; and most probably Ap. 8. 4 rats Trpocrevxc-Ls, 
cp. 3 (Winer, § 31, 6). The peculiar Pauline employment of the 
dat. in the following passages is not quite the same as in the 
last instances: R. 6. 10 ö uTredavev, ry dpaprla. dirWarev, 6 8e 
&}> Cv T( ? ^ e< ?5 then in verse 11 vexpovs ph> ry ap., fövras Se 
tw 6ew, 14. 7 f. oi'Set? eavTio £y, kou ovSels eaurw aTroOvycrKei' idv 
T£ yap fyafiev, tw Kvpiu> £wp(V, eav re diroÖvy<TKu>p.ev, Tai k. aVo- 
dvyo-Kopev, from which the conclusion is drawn that in every 
case tov KvpLov icrpev ; cp. further 6. 2, 7. 4 £6avaTio6yTe tw 
i'o/AW — ets to yevecrdai ipds erepw k.t.A., 2 C. 5. 15, G. 2. 19, 
1 P. 2. 24 ; the dative therefore expresses the possessor, cp. 
the dat. with ylveo-ßai infra 3. Further instances: 2 C. 5. 13 
€6Te yap k^karrypev, 6(.m ('it concerns God alone'), eiVe <TO)(f>poi>ovp.e\', ('in your interest) : R. 14. 4 tw tSiw Kvpüo crryKet y iri-irrei, 6 o 
(ppoi'cov T7]v ypkpav Kvpiw cfrpovei' Kai 6 iaditnv Kvpia) ecr&Uf zvyapuTTV, 
yap tw dew k.t.A. i.e. eating etc. is a matter in which God is con- 
cerned, which takes place for Him (for His honour). Cp. also the 
O.T. quotation ibid. 11 ipol xapxpei irdv yon;, with which may be 
connected the use of TrpovKwdv Tin (§ 34, 1). A peculiar use is 
that in Mc. 10. 2>2> «aTaKpLvovcriv avTov Oavarto (-ov D*) = Mt. 20. 18 
(here read by CD al., eis ddvarov n, B omits the noun), according to 
Winer, § 31, 1 = ' to sentence to death,' cp. instances from late writers 
like Diod. Sic. in Lob. Phryn. 475, 2 P. 2. 6 (a-ravpw Clem. Horn. 
Epit. i. 145) ; it may be influenced by the analogy of Qavdrw ^ypiovv 
and the Latin caplte damnare. 

3. The dat. with etvat, yivecrdau (yirapyeiv in Acts and 2 P. 1. 8) 
denotes the possessor, so that it corresponds to ' to have ' or ' get ' 
with an altered construction : ovk yv avToh töVos ' they had no 
room' L. 2. 7, eyivero Trdcry ^v\y (froßos 'all experienced and 
continued to feel a fright ' A. 2. 43, a common construction, as also 
in classical Greek, used where the possessor is previously known and 
the emphasis is laid not on him but on the thing which falls to his 
lot (on the other hand with a gen. auT^ y oi/aa Sw/cpdYovs la-riv 
' the house [which is previously known] belongs to Socrates,' 
cp. R. 14. 8 etc.) ; but we also have R. 7. 3 lav ykvyrai dv&pi erepa>, 

4 eis to ycveVoai ipas eTepw (a Hebraism, modelled on UTK,? »T 1 »!, 

112 DATIVE. [§37-3-4. 

LXX. Lev. 22. 12 etc.), A. 2. 39 kvTiv ■>) eVayycAia, due no doubt 
to eirayyeXX&rdai tlvl, L. 12. 10 a yjToiLiao-as, tIvl eorat (sc. v,Toipa- 
o-pkva ?, but D has rtVos). Correctly in A. 21. 23 do-lv 8a>8eKa 
avSpes 'we have here'; Mt. 19. 27 tl ecrrou. 17/411/. On the model of 
tcTTiv o-vvijOeca vfxlv Jo, 18. 39 we have also Kara to ei'wöo? avTiZ 
L. 4. 16 (aur$ om. D), A. 17. 2 (6 IlaSAos D) ? l Of time: A. 2i. 1 1 
oü 7rAetovs eicrt //ot r)p.kpai SwSeKa d<£' -iy«. Also with the meaning ' to 
happen' Mt. 16. 22 ov p) eWai 0-01 tovto, L. 1. 45, cp. the dat. with 
crvftpaivei Mc. 10. 32 etc., and with ellipse of the verb L. 1. 43 irödev 
pot tovto. The opposite meaning appears in eV 0-01 AeiVei L. 18. 22, 
Tit. 3. 12 (Polyb. 10, 18, 8), cp. the use with vo-Tepelv, a v.l. in 
Mc. 10. 21, § 34, 1. — The relation expressed is different, if eort with 
the dat. only forms a part of the predicate : the idea of possession 
is then at any rate not in all cases apparent. A. 9. 15 o-kcOos eK-Aoyv/s 
la-Tt jjlol ovTos means 'I have in him' etc.; but 1 C. 1. 18 o Aoyos tov 
o-Tavpov Tots ll\v ci7roAAi>/xe!'065 p.u>pla «rriV = ' is folly to them,' ' passes 
for folly with them,' cp. 2. 14 f., Mt. 18. 17 ; also with the meaning 
'it redounds to his' etc., 1 C. 11. 14 f. aTipla avrw «cm. ( = 'he gets 
dishonour therefrom'), whereas 14. 22 els o-rjpdov elo-tv tois k.t.X. 
means 'are there for,' 'serve for' (cp. Ja. 5. 3). — With adjectives: 
xa\6v 0-0L eo-Tiv 'is good for thee' Mt. 18. 8 etc. ( = 'thou derivest 
profit therefrom'), A. 19. 31 ovres aürw </>i'Aot 'who had Paul for a 
friend ' (</h'Aos in itself as a substantive regularly takes the gen.: ovk 
€? <p'i Aos tov Kaicrapos Jo. 19. 12 ; similarly i\6p6^ y fjcrav kolvojvoI tw 
Si/iwvt L. 5. i o, ' S. had them for partners ' (D yo-av 81 k. avTov, cp. 
H. 10. 33). With an adverb: oo-tws . . . eyevyO^pev 1 Th. 2. 10 
(§ 76, 1); oval pol eo-Tiv 1. C. 9. 16, elsewhere frequently oval tlvl 
without a verb, Mt. 1 1 . 2 1 etc. : in the Apocalypse it takes an ace. 
in 8. 13 «B, 12.12 n ACP, cp. Latin vae me and mihi ; Buttm. p. 1 34. 
— The following are equivalent to datives with elvat : 1 C. 7. 28 
OXlxj/Lv Trj o-apul ('for the flesh'; with kv D*FG) isgovariv; 2. C. 2. 13 
ovk io-\rjKa dvecriv tw jrveu/AOiTi pov (with ellipse of the verb G. 5. 13) ; 
in conjunction with another dat. 2 C. 12. 7 e5o#>; p.01 ctkoAo^ 77J 
o-upxl; further instances occur with evpurKav, Mt. 11. 29 evptjcreTt 
uvuLTravo-iv Tai« if/v\als vpwv, R. 7. IO, 2 1, 2 C. 12. 20, Ap. 20. II ; 
with KLvdv o"Tttcrets A. 24. 5 ; with dyopd^eii' dypov ei$ Tatpyjv Mt. 27. 7 
(as one might say eo-Tiv kvTavda Ta</») tois £eVois) ; with an adjective, 
povoyevrjs tij pi]Tpl L. 7. 12 (cp. LXX. Win. § 31, 3). 

4. Not far removed from the use of the dat. with eivac is its use 
with the perfect passive = iVo with a gen.: irkirpaKTal pot tovto 'I 
have done this' ; so in N.T. L. 23, 15.' 2 The other N.T. instances, 
however, of the dat. with passive verbs are connected with the 
particular sense in which the verb is used. In classical Greek we 
have <f>alveo-6tu tlvl 'to appear' corresponding to (ftalveiv tivI 'to 
shine,' 'give light' (supra 1), and so in the N.T. in addition to 

1 Has this strange usage of Luke arisen from Plat. Rep. ii. 359 E avWoyov 
yevojxivov tois Troi|j.€<riv (with yevofx. ) c'iwGotos '.' Cp. § 2, 4. 

2 D has ovMv a^iov ttstt pay tiivov earlv kv avr$, c invenittlUS in illo. 
Perhaps the right reading is eo-riv iv avrqi without ireirp., cp. A. 25. 5. 

§37-4-6.] DATIVE, II3 

cpaLvecrdai, (pavepovcrdat, we have also oirrdvecrOai rivi (aor. 6<p0rjvcu) 
' to appear ' with the same construction (6'</>ö»yTi p.ot is found already 

in Eurip. Bacch. 914; Hebr. W15 with pK or 5, Syr. «TWIN with b), 
A. 1. 3 and passim, not to be explained as equivalent to 6<pdrjvai vtto 
tivos (in A. 7. 26 uxfißr/ auTots is rather supervenit than apparuit). Cp. 
§ 54, 4. So too deadrjvcu tois dvdpwTrois Mt. 6. 1, 23. 5, and more 
frequently yvmo-dijvai ' to become known,' A. 9. 24 etc., § 54, 4 * (but 
eyi/wo-Tc«, i'7r' auTou 1 C. 8. 3, 'has been recognised by God,' cp. 
G. 4. 9), tvpedrjvai only in E. 10. 20 O.T. (there is a v.l with h>, but 

the Hebrew in Isaiah 65. 1 has p). 2 We have further yap.d<r$ai tivi 
of the woman (as in Att.) 1 C. 7. 39 (but cp. § 24 yajxdv), pv^o-rev- 
ecrdai rivt Mt. 1. 18, and ireidecrOai as in Attic; Ja. 3. 7 Sa/xa^erai koX 
SeSa/xacrTat t?7 cp-vaei ry dvdpwirivrj is ambiguous (8ap,rjvai tlvl is 
Homeric, but here the dat. is rather instrumental), in 2 P. 2. 19 <5 
Tis r/TTijTou, tovtw /ecu SeSouAojTat (SouAouv twi) the relative most prob- 
ably means ' whereby,' since i)tto.v in Hellenistic Greek is an active 
verb and may form an ordinary passive. 3 On crwecpuivydt] A. 5. 9 
vide infra 6, page 114, note 1. 

5. To the dative expressing the weakest connection, the so-called 
ethic dative, may be referred Ap. 2. 5 (cp. 16) eoxo/W 0-01, unless 
rather the dative, as in Mt. 21. 5 O.T. epxcTou 0-01, is an incorrect 

rendering of the Hebrew T^. Cp. Buttm. 155 f. Another Hebraism 
is dcrreios tw öew A. 7. 2 0, like LXX. Jonah 3. 3 7roAis p,eydXy] tu> 6ea> 
(D^PviQ), *•*■ 'very great,' whereas 2 P. 3. 14 aWiAoi ko.1 äp,u>p.i]Toi 
avTip (God) €vpe6?]vou probably rather contains the dat. denoting 
possession, cp. supra 3 ; 4 Barn. 8. 4 /xeyaAoi tw $ei» ' for God,' ' in God's 
sight.' Another case of assimilation to Hebrew is seen in the fact 
that the classical use of dat. /xot in addresses (c5 tckvov p,oi, <S Upwrapxe 
(xol) has disappeared and its place been taken by the gen.: tzkvov p.ov 

2 Tim. 2. 1, re/cva p,ov G. 4. 19, rex via fiov 1 Jo. 2. 1 (in 3. 18 as a 
v.l., «AB al. read without pov, which is the ordinary usage; with 
7rav8t.a the pronoun never occurs), irdrep i)p.Q>v Mt. 6. 9 (elsewhere 
Trdrep without pron., as the LXX. also translates the Hebr. "UN, 
Gen. 22. 7 etc.). 

6. Dative of community. — This dative, which is related to the 
instrumental dat. ( = dat. of accompaniment or association), is 

1 With A. 7. 13 äveyvwpiadT] 'Iwa^rp roh &de\<p(ns avrov, cp. yvuplfetv rl tlvi 2. 28. 

2 The dat. with evplo-Keadai in R. 7. io etc. is of another character, cp. supra 

3 ad fin. ; on 2 P. 3. 14 vide infra 5. 

3 Ja. 3. 18 Kapwbs ... (nrelperai roh wowvaiv elprjvrjv is an instance of dat. corn- 
modi ; cp. 1 P. 5. 9, L. 18. 31 (supra 2). — There are clear instances of the dat. 
governed by the passive as such in the Clementine Homilies, e.g. iii. 68 deip 
iarvyqrat., ix. 21 8aifiocriv aKoverai, xix. 23 rjTVXV Tai - T0 ' s raireivois. 

*A comparison, however, of E. 1. 4 etvat rjnas . . . ä/xüipovs KaT€vuiriov avrov, 
Col. 1 . 22 irapaffTricai vfia% . . . d/uco/uous /cat dveyKXrjTovs kovt. avr. , makes it possible 
to interpret the dat. as equivalent to this periphrasis, which frequently takes 
the place of the correct dative, 1 Jo. 3. 22 rä äpearä ivdnriov avrov. 


114 DATIVE. [§37.6. 

frequently found with ätcoXovGetv (o-uva*. ; with truvhrardtu only in 
A. 20. 4, with «Vccröai nowhere), beside the Hebraic o.k. ottio-u) nvds 
Mt. 10. 38, Mc. 8. 34 v.l. (/xtTa tlvos, also classical, occurs in Ap. 
6. 8, 14. 13 ; but in L. 9. 49 p,e6' r)p.Qv is not 'us' but 'with us'); 
with 8iaXe'Y€<r0ai (also 77730s tlvo. as in class. Greek) ; öpXciv A. 24. 26 ' to 
converse' (-n-pos tlvo. L. 24. 14); Kpiv«cr6eu 'to dispute' Mt. 5. 40 
(fXiTa Tivos 1 C. 6. 6, cp. 7, like iroXjefieiv, 7r6Xep.ov iroulv /xerd Ttvos 
Ap. 11. 7, 12. 7 al., Hebr. D", cp. § 42, 3; (piXoi /xe-r' dXX^wv 
L. 23. 12); 8ia,Kpive<rflai (same meaning) Jd. 9 (77700s nva A. 11. 2, 
classical; cp. pd^eo-dai 777005 Jo. 6. 52); 8ioKaT€X.e'yx€cr0ai A 18. 28; 
SiaX.\dTT£o-0cu Mt. 5. 24, and more frequently KaTaXXdo-o-tiv nvd tlvl 
and KaTaAAacrcrccröai tlvl ; SiaßdXXco-dai (pass.) tlvl ' to be calumniated 
to someone' L. 16. 1, peiyvvvaL Ap. 15. 2 (with iv 8. 7, with /xera 
Mt. 27. 34, L. 13. 1) ; KoXXä<r9au (777500-K0AA.) tlvl L. 15. 15 etc. ; 
Xpfjo-9ai A. 27. 3, 17, 1 C. (a v.l. in 7. 31, see § 34, 2), 9. 12, 15, 
2 C. 1. 17, 3. 12, 1 Tim. 1. 8, 5. 23, KaTo.xpi~]o~0a-i 1 C. 9. 18 (cnryx/a. 
Jo. 4. 9 in an interpolated clause) ; koivwvciv R. 12. 13 al. ; ercpoSxryeiv 
diricTTois (from eTepd^vyos Levit. 19. 19, used of beasts of different 
kinds in a team) 2 C. 6. 14 'to be in unequal fellowship' (like <rv{vy. 
tlvl, Win. § 31, 10 Rem. 4) ; öp.oiovv 6p,oiovcr9ai Mt. 6. 8 etc.; öp-oid^iv 
23. 27 (intrans., v.l. Trapop..), like d/iotos vide infra; eyyi^iv L. 7. 12 
etc. (also with eis 18. 35 [rfj 'lep. some cursives and Epiphanias], on 
account of the indeclinable 'Ie/nx^? as m 19. 29, Mt. 21. 1, 
Mc. 11. 1, though we also have ets rrjv Kwp-qv L. 24, 28 ; with «Vi 10. 
9). The verbs compounded with avv which govern a dative are 
very numerous, such as crvyKadrjcrdaL A. 26. 30 (with perd in 
Mc. 14. 54, but D has Ka.drjp.evos), <TvyKa.KO-7ra.6e.iv 2 Tim. 1. 8, 
o-vyKaKov\€.io-dai H. 11. 25, 0-vyKaTaTidecrÖai L. 23. 51, 6 Adyos ovk 
to(pe\.r)o-ev eKeivovs pi) crvyKeKepao-p.evo<; (-oi'S is a wrong reading), TQ 
mo-Tel (instrum.) 701s aKovo-ao-iv H. 4. 2, etc. (some few also take p.erd 
as o-vAAaAeii' in Mt. 17. 3, A. 25. 12, but dat. in Mc. 9. 4 etc., 77750s 
üAA/)Aovs L. 4. 36; crvp,<pu>v€iv perd Mt. 20. 2, but dat. in 13 and 
elsewhere); 1 a peculiar and unclassical instance is o~vvkp\eo-dai tivl 
A. 1. 21 etc., 'to go with someone. — Of adjectives the following 
deserve special mention : 8p.oios (with gen.? § 36, 11),- 6 av-rds (ev Kai 
tö avTo) only in 1 C. 11. 5; t-'o-os Mt. 20. 12 etc. (for which we have a 
periphrasis with ws kol in A. 1 1. 17 ; 6 avros with kolOms /cat 1 Th. 2. 14, 
or with ofos Ph. 1. 30) ; 3 of compounds with trvv we have o-vppop<}>6s 
tlvl Ph. 3. 21 (gen. of the thing possessed in R. 8. 29 tt}s eiicovos, see 
$ 36, 11; for classical parallels Matthiae Gr. 864), o-vp.<t>vTos tw 
upoiwpaTi tov davaTov avrov R. 6. 5 ; but the remaining compounds 
of trvv are made into substantives (like <£i'Aos etc.) and take a gen., 

1 There is a peculiar use in A. 5. 9 <Tvve<pwvf)6ri vfitv convenit inter vos ; cp. a 
late author quoted by Stobaeus, Flor. 39, 32 avve(püvr)o-e roh 8r)ßois, ' the com- 
munities agreed.' 

2 Besides expressing the similar person or thing, the dat. may also express 
the possessor of the similar thing (Homer KÖ/xat Xaplrtcroiv ößoiai) : Ap. 9. 10 
i"x°v<nv oi'päs öixoias cKopwiois, 13. 1 1 ; similarly rots iaoriixov ijp.iv iriariv \axovaiv 
2 P. 1. i, Buttm. p. 154. 

3 In a quotation in R. 9. 29 we have wj Ybiioppa b\v 

§ 37- 6-T.j DATIVE. 1 15 

trvyyei'v/s o-i'yK/\>/povd/xos cri/z/3oiAos cri'/x/i€To^os (E. 5. 7) (ri'i'at^/xaXcuros 
a-nepyds cruVrpo </>os. Substantives take no share in these construc- 
tions with the dat. (as they occasionally do in classical Greek, 
Kühner Gr. IL 2 372 f.), e.g. R. 15. 26 Kocvwviav TronjcracrdaL eis Tors 
—t(d\ovs, 2 C. 9. 13, Tis KOLvuivia (pwrl (has the light ; </>üjtos D*) 7rpbs 
o-kotos 2 C. 6. 14, Kotvwi't'av «x 7 ? 1 " 6 A 16 ^ ?}/*wv 1 Jo. 1. 3, 6, 7. The 
adverb ä/ua takes the dat. only in Mt. 13. 29 dp.a cu'tois tov crlrov 
(but D äyua Kai t. er. errv arrois, cp. dpa cri'v 1 Th. 4. 17, 5. 10) ; Oll 
eyyi's see § 36, 11. 

7. A great number of verbs (and adjectives) compounded with 
other prepositions besides o-vv govern the dative, while the sentence 
may also be completed by the use of a preposition ; in general there 
is this distinction made (as occasionally in classical Greek and in 
Latin), that the preposition is used where the verb has its literal 
meaning, and the dative where it has a figurative sense. Thus the 
following compounds of ev regularly take a preposition : epßaiveiv, 
€jj.ßißd^€Li', (fißdXXeLv, ifißdirreiv, efiiriirreiv ; the following regularly 
take the dative : iyicaXeZv (supra 1), eppacvecrdai (A. 26. n), ifnratfav. 
kvTvyxave.Lv ('to entreat'; with -pds in Herrn. Sim. ii. 8), but we 
also have e'/z/3AeVeiv twi (person) = ßX. eis rtva; the following take 
sometimes the dat., sometimes a preposition: eyKevrpCfeiv R. 11. 24 

eis KaAAieAouoi', Tij i'öYa eAaia, ififieveiv with dat. in A. 14. 22, G. 3. 10 

O.T. ***B (with cv al and' lxx.), with ev H. 8. 9 O.T., i/arnkiv. 

Compounds of els take a preposition only (elaep\ecr6ai eis etc.); with 
eirl cp. the following exx. : emßdMeiv eVi ipariw (-tov) Mt. 9. 16, 
L. 5. 36 ; similarly eVi/3a'AAeiv -ras x e 'P a ? takes eVi, except in A. 4. 3 
where it has the dat. (D is different) ; eiriTiSe'vai, rrjv x e ^P°- TLVL an ^ 
eiri rtva occur : elsewhere the prep, preponderates where this verb is 
used in the literal sense, as in eVi Tors w/iovs Mt. 23. 4 (Jo. 19 2 ry 
K€<f>a\rj, but A has eVi t?)v Ke^aA?;v; L. 23. 26 avTW tov crravpov), and 
the dat. with the figurative sense, dvo/xa Mc. 3. 16 f., cp. «rticaAei/ 
-in oi'o/xa (the classical eVovo/mfeiv is similarly used) Mt. 10. 25 B* 
and Buttm. p. 132, /3dpos A. 15. 28, 7rA?/yas 16. 23; eViTi'0eo-0ai 'to 
lay hands on' 18. 10, with the idea of presenting 28. 10 l (the prep, 
only occurs in Ap. 22. 18 lav ns l-n-iOy eV avrd ['adds to'], l-iB-qo-ti 

6 debs eV avruv Tas 7rA?jyas) ; i(f>LCTTacr6ai takes dat. and eVi, etc. 

Compounds of impd : irapaTLBkvai rivi is used (not so much ' beside 
anyone ' as ' for anyone '), and TzaparidecrBai ' to commend ' takes the 

same construction ; — apeopei'eii' (v.l. Trpocr.) tw BvcriacrTrjpla) (fig.) 

1 C. 9. 13, and from this is derived the use with the adj. to evrrdpeSpov 
(v.l. er-pder.) tw Kvpi'ip 7. 35, which is more striking because this adj. 
takes the place of a substantive (Kühner II. 2 372 f.) ; also with dat. 
-apexeiv, Trapurrdvai, — apio-rao-öai (even in the literal sense e.g. 
A. 1. 10, 9. 39) ; Trapeivai usually takes a prep, (irpos vfias 2 C. 11. 8), 
but the dat. where the verb is used metaphorically 2 P. 1. 9 (and 8 
according to A); -a.pap.kvuv tivi (D c al. crvp.Tr.) Ph. 1. 25 (also the adj. 
Trapa/iovds tlvl [dat. of thing] Herrn. Sim. ix. 23. 3). With irepi we 
have : Trepntdevai with dat., TrepißaAAeiv L. 19. 43 (on irtpiß. rivd ri 

1 The Syriac inserts in navi (apparently an addition of the ß text). 


see § 34, 4), TrepiKeip-evov i) ve<f>os paprvpwv H. 1*2. 1, but with the 
literal sense of the verb -n-epl tot Tpä^-qXov Mc. 9. 42, L. 17. 2, 7rept- 

7ri7TT£tV €l's TOTTOV A. 27. 4 1 , bllt \l](7Tals, TT€ipa(Tp.Ol<; L. 10. 30, Ja. 1. 2, 

TrepLireipeiv eavTuv oSuvats 1 Tim. 6. io. With irpds : irpoo-nGtvai cVt ti 
is used where the verb has the literal sense Mt. 6. 27, L. 12. 25, em 
rii't to add to something L. 3. 20, 1 but the person for whom the 
addition is made stands in the dat. Mt. 6. 33 etc., H. 12. 19; 
•7rpoa-tpxe<r0ai regularly takes the dat. of the person, also üpovw, opet 
H. 4. 16, 12. 18, 22 ; the following also take the dat. Trpoo-kyew (e.g. 
eavrw), Trpoa-Kaprepelv, irpoo-KXiveurOat, (fig.); and with the literal sense 
TrpocnriTTTeiv (Mt. 7. 25 etc.; only in Mc. 7. 25 7roos rovs 7rdSas avrov), 
Trpo(T(pepav (77730s Tov — H. 5. 7, here plainly in figurative sense) ; 
irpoa-KvXUiV Xidov rrj dvpa Mt. 27. 60 (A has «rt. SO «T6 tijv 6. 
Mc. 15. 46); irpoo-<pwvtiv tivi Mt. 11. 16, A. 22. 2 (D omits avTots) 
etc., or transitively with two. 'to summon' L. 6. 13 (D ec/xovr/crei'), 
A. 11. 2 D (L. 23. 20 D outcws, nB avTois, absolute verb Aal.). 
— With compounds of o.vtC the dat. is the prevailing construction 
(äi'öurracrÖcu, avTiXkyuv, d\TLKei(rdai, avTnr'nrTUV etc.; rarely Trpos Tiva, 
as äi'TaywvL^ecrdai 7r/3os H. 12. 4), and the same holds good of com- 
pounds of iiirö, with which prep, as with dvri the literal meaning 
becomes obliterated (wroTao-o-eii/ rtvt, only in quotations do we have 

VTTO TOUS 7ToSaS Or VT70K(XT(ii TMV 7To8tüV 1 C. 15. 27, H. 2. 8; VTTOTldecrdai 

1 Tim. 4. 6 'to advise'; virdpxuv, viraKoveiv); with dvd we have dva- 
TiOeo-Oai (irpoiTavaT.) rivi ' to lay a case before someone' A. 25. 14 
etc. — A substantive is also found with a dat. (cp. supra 6) in 

2 C. 11. 28 tj eVio-rao-ts p.01 1) kol$' rjfMepav «*BFG, but the text can 
hardly be correct (n c D al. ftov, Latt. in me). 



1. The dative as the instrumental case is found in the N.T. as in 
classical Greek, but this use is considerably limited by the employ- 
ment of the periphrasis with iv. The latter usage is by no means 
foreign to the Greek language (Kühner Gr. ii. 2 , 403 f.); for the N.T. 
writers, however, it is the Hebrew S which has set the example of 
this construction, 2 and for this reason the frequency with which it 
occurs differs with the individual writers : in the second half of the 
Acts (13-28) the usage is rare and never a prominent feature, 3 while 

1 ' To add to the community ' is expressed in A. 2. 47 by rrj eKKXrjo-lg. EP ( D 
h Ty (.), the other MSS. make the verb absolute as it is in 41 and in S. 14 ; with 
the same meaning in 11. 24 we have r£ Kvpiy, which however B*, no doubt 
rightly, omits ; 'to be gathered to his fathers' is expressed by Trp6s in 13. 36. 

- In modern Greek, in which the dative is wanting, the instrumental case is 
expressed by fierä (/xt), this use of ei> having disappeared. 

' A. 13. 29 diKaiovaOai iv, for which see below in the text ; 26. 29 kcu iv d\iyu) 
Kal iv fieydXii), which in the mouth of Paul (the iv 6\lyu) of Agrippa in 28 is 
different) apparently should be taken to mean 'by little, by much,' i.e. 
'easily, with difficulty.' Moreover the instances in the first half of the Acts 
are not numerous. 


the reverse is the case in the Apocalypse. — Examples : with the 
sword, by the sword (to strike, to perish etc.) lv fiaxaipr) or pofMpaiq, 

Mt. 26. 52, L. 22. 49, Ap. 2. 16, 6. 8, 13. IO, 19. 21, lv </>oVw fiaxaipr)<s 
H. 11. 37, ixa\aipy without ev A. 12. 2, crTO/xaTt /xa^atpr/S L. 21. 24. 

To season with salt: äAart Col. 4. 6, dAi^eii' n-wpi (dA/) Ma 9. 50 
modelled on O.T., but lv rivt dXia-dya-erai to dAas Mt. 5. 13, Mc. 9. 50, 
L. 14. 34. To consume with fire etc. is lv Trvpi 1 in Ap. 14. 10, 16. 8, 
17. 16 (without lv nBP), 18. 8 (for merely 'to burn with fire' even 
the Apocalypse uses nvpl kcuWÖgu, 8. 8, 21. 8), 7rvpl in Mt. 3. 12, 
L. 3. 17. 'To baptize with' is usually expressed by lv vSolti or 
lv Trvevfiari; Luke however has vSan in 3. 16 (with lv in D, in the 
same passage all MSS. have lv rrvevfian in the opposing clause), 
A. 1. 5 (but lv irvevfiaTi ibid.), 11. 16 (with lv irv.; but XP tetv ttvci'/xciti 
10. 38). With Slko-lovv SiKcuouo-tfcu the dat. is found as in R. 3. 28 

tt'uttu, but also lv, lv vofiw G. 5. 4, A. 13. 39, lv TW alfiaTl TOV Y/> 

R. 5. 9 (Ik 7TtcrT۟)s 5. 1 etc.). On the use of lv to denote the personal 
agent, which cannot be expressed by the dat., see § 41, 1 ; on the 
Hebraic periphrases for the person with x €t V an d a-ro/ia § 40, 9. 
Merpdv ev rive and tlvi are used for ' to measure by ' Mt. 7. 2, 
Mc. 4. 24, 2 C. 10. 12 2 (ev), L. 6. 38 (dat.); also 'to measure with,' 
Ap. 11. 1, 21. 16 (lv) Kakdpup. The N.T. also has p-zOvo-Keo-dai oi'vw 
(E. 5. 18, like lxx. Pro v. 4. 17), not 01 von the Attic construction; 3 
similarly 7rA7/pouv nvi or lv tlvi, with anything (the dat. is occasionally 
used in classical Greek, in Eurip. Bacch. 18 with -nXypris, in Here. 
Fur. 372 and Aesch. Sept. 464 with -aXt-jpovv), besides the gen. for 
which see § 36, 4 ; cp. also v7repTrepLcrcrevofiou rrj x a P a (* v T - X* -B) 
2 C. 7. 4. 

2. The instrumental dative is moreover used to denote the cause 
or occasion: R. 11. 20 rrj d^io-Tip, l£€K\dcrdr](rav, 'on account of their 
unbelief,' 30 yXetj Oyre ry toi'twv direideia, 31 i]ireL0r)crav tw v/xeTepw 
IXlu, 'because God wished to have mercy on you,' 4 4. 20 ov Sienpidy 
ry diricTTia, dAA' IveSvi'afiioOr) ry 7tl<tt€i, 1 C. 8. 7 etc.; see also A. 15. I 
7T€pLTepLV€o-dcu tw Wei tw MwL'o-ews, 'after,' 'in accordance with' (the ß 
text has a different and more ordinary expression) ; it also denotes 
the part, attribute etc., in respect of which anything takes place, 
1 C. 14. 20 fir) TraiSia yLvecrde tciis (frpecrcv. dAAd ry KaKiq. vyirid^ere, 
rats Se (f>pecrlv rlXeiot, yivea~de, Ph. 2. 7 cry/'/yuaTt evpe$el<> ws dv9pwiros, 
3. 5 Trepirofirj oKTayfiepos, 'eight days old at circumcision,' 'circumcised 
on the eighth day', so <f>vcrei 'by nature,' G. 2. 15 etc., tw ykvet 'by 
extraction,' A. 4. 36 etc.; direp'iTfiyTOi ry KapSia A. 7. 51, dSi'i'dTOs 
Tots ttoctlv 14. 8, eo-TepeoiWo rrj TTLcrret, Kal Irrepicraevov tw dptdfiQ> 16. 5, 

1 An accidental coincidence with the Homeric ev irvpl Kaieiv II. xxiv. 38. 

2 Here the phrase is iv eavroh 'by themselves,' where it is true that in 
classical Greek the dative could not stand : still no more could iv, the phrase 
would be TTpos iavrovs. 

3 Yet even classical Greek has fiedveiv Ipwri ; and Lucian de dea Syr. 22 
ßeOiHTaaa iavrr)v otvu. The Apocalypse has e/c : 17. 2, 6. 

4 [The words ti2 i/i. £\. may also be taken with the following clause ; see 
Sanday-Headlam and Gifford ad loc. Tr.] 


6v6fxaTL ' by name ' (§ 33, 2), tw fn'/Ket. ttoBwv (koltov Herrn. Vis. iv. 
1. 6, 1 etc. etc. The usage of the N.T. language in this respect may 
be said to be constant, since the alternative use of the accusative 
which in the classical language is widely prevalent 2 is almost entirely 
unrepresented (cp. § 34, 7). The cause may, of course, be also 
expressed by means of a preposition (e.g. by iv in iv tovtw A. 24. 16, 
Jo. 16. 30 'on this account,' § 41, 1) ; this is especially the case with 
verbs expressing emotion (classical Greek uses the simple dat. and 
ace. as well) : \aipziv *""* ™ Mt. 18. 3 etc., iv tovtoj L. 10. 20 
(R. 12. 12 t-q e\.7rit><. is different, not 'rejoicing over the hope,' but 
' in virtue of hope,' ' in hope,') and so dyaAAiao-0cu, eixppaivto-ßai are 
used with iv or im ; evSoKelv iv (ets 2 P. 1. 17, Mt. 12. 18 O.T. [iv 
D; ace. s*B], cp. H. 10. 6, 8 O.T., § 34, 1), which in cultured style 
is expressed by evapea-reiraL Toiaurcus 6WiGus H. 13. 16 (Diodor. 3, 
55. 9 etc.) ; davp.dtje.iv im tivl L. 4. 22 etc., rrepi tivos 2. 18 3 (on 6. 
Tivd, Tt see § 34, 1), SO i kit Xr^rrcr ecr 6 'at im nvi, but 1 P. 4. 12 p.i) 
£evi£e<r9e rrj k.t.X. (ibid. 4 with iv), Kav^dcrOai iv or km' (for the ace. 
§ 34, I), <t vWvtt turd at iiri Mc. 3. 5 (but after 6pyi(ecrdai Ap. 12. 17, 
[xaKpoOvfjbdv Mt. 28. 26 etc., km [eis, 7rpos] is used with the person 
with whom one is angry or long-suffering). 

3. This dative further expresses the accompanying circumstances, 
the manner and style of an action : 1 C. 10. 30 x^P tTL A^X ^ ' w ' tn 
thanks,' H. 5 Trpoa-(v\op,evi] aKaTaKaXt'TrTio rrj K€<f>aXrj (Herm. Sim. 
ix. 20. 3 yvp,vois ttoctlv, Vis. V. I elcrrjXOev dv^p ... cr^vy/ian 7roi/xevi/au), 
H. 6. 17 e/A€criT£ixrei> op™. An alternative for the dat. is perd rtvos : 
Mt. 26. 72 rjpvi')(ra.TO /zeö' opKOV (Xenoph. Cyr. Ü. 3. 12 crvv 0€mv opK(i> 
Aeyw), cp. H. 7. 20 f. ov X W P' S opKUjAocr tas — p.e9' opK.; fxera /?ia? A. 5. 
26, 24. 7 (class. /3ia, Trpos ßlav), //.era (f>(Dvrjs p,eydXi]S L. 17. 1 5 (p.erd 
<T-ov8rj$ Kal Kpavyrjs iroXXqs Aeschin. 2. 10), etc. In Mc. 14. 65 
pa.TTi.crp.aar iv avrov eXaßov is quite a vulgarism, which at present can 
only be paralleled from a papyrus of the first century A.D. (an argu- 
ment to Demosth. Midias), where we find (aiVor) kovSvXois ZXaßev. 4 
Accompanying (military) forces in classical Greek are expressed by 
the dat., in the N.T. by iv, iv Sixa v/Aido-iv aVavTaV L. 14. 31, cp. 
Jd. 14, A. 7. 14 (also (eur)ipxi.cr6ai iv aip^ari 'with' H. 9. 25, 1 Jo. 
5. 6; iv pdßSy c'AÖü) 1 C. 4. 21, 2 C. 10. 14 etc.); iv also denotes 
manner in kv Tay^i, iv iKTtveia. etc., see § 41, 1. We have Travrl 
T/)o~a>, etT€ TTpCKpdtra. eiTC dXrjdeia Ph. 1. 18 (7rotois TpoVois Herm. 
Mand. xii. 3. 1), but elsewhere ov rpoirov etc., § 34, 7 (iv Travrl rp., 

1 2 C. 7. II <rvv€ffTi)craTe iavTovs äyvovs elvai (iv add. I) b EKLP, cp. äy. iv rrj 
aapd Clem. Cor. i. 38, 2) rip irpdy/j.a.Ti is very harsh : perhaps dvai is a corrup- 
tion of iv, cp. § 34, 5. 

2 The dative is employed in classical Greek if a contrast is made or is present 
to the mind of the writer, <pvaei - v6ßu>, Xdytp- Zpyw; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 31 rois 
aüßaaiv ädvvarot - rals \pvxcüs aeö^roc ; on the other hand in A nab. i. 4. 11 for 
7r6\tj Qä\f/a.Kos ö, 6vofxa is correctly restored from the mss. (cp. §§ 33, 2 ; 
34, 7). 

3 Ap. 13. 3 idavpaoev owlaw tov drjpiov is very strange, a pregnant construction 
for id. iiri rep 6. /ecu iwopetidi) dir. cu'toD, see W.-Gr. 

4 See Fleckeis. Jahrb. f. class. Piniol. 1892, p. 29, 33. 


with a v.l. [male] tottw 2 Th. 3. 16). A usage almost peculiar to the 
N.T. (and the lxx.) is the dat. 6S<3 etc. with irop«v€o-0ai, ir€pnra,T£tv, 
<rroix«iv, in the N.T. always in metaphorical sense (L. 10. 31 Kai-e- 
ßatvev ev 177 68i3 eKeivy, B without ev), in the LXX. also in the literal, 
cp. Ja. 2. 25 (class. aSiKov 68bv lovtcov Thuc. iii. 64. 4 ; but Hebr. 

^3112 TJ^n Gen. 19. 2, and so Thuc. ii. 96. 1 eTropevero ry 6Sw r}v 
avrbs irroi-qa-aro 'by means of the way'; literal sense): A. 14. 16 iropeveo-Qat 
tgus 6801s avrwv, Jd. 11, R. 4. 12 o-Toi\dv Tots lyyeo-iv (Clem. Horn, 
x. 15 tw vjxüiv o-toi\€lt€ irapa8elyp.aTi) ; further developments are rots 
edeaiv TrepnraTetv A. 21. 21, kw/xois koli p,edais R. 13. 13, irvevpaTi 
G. 5. 16, TTopeveo-Oat t£ (f>6ßo) tou nvpLov A. 9. 31 (the ace. is found 
with the literal sense of the word in t?)v 68ov uvtov A. 8. 39 ; with 
the metaphorical sense we have nop. ev 1 P 4. 3, -irepnraTeiv ev 2 C. 4. 2 
etc., Ka-ra o-äpKOL R. 8. 4), Buttm. p. 160. Further (ibid 159 f.) 
verbal substantives used with their cognate verbs or with verbs of 
similar meaning stand in the dative — the usage is an imitation of the 
Hebrew infinitive absolute like rfflflP JTTO and is consequently found 
already in the lxx. — whereas the analogous classical phrases such as 
ya/xw yapelv ('in true wedlock'), 4>vyn <f>evyeiv ('to flee with all 
speed ') are only accidentally similar to these The N.T instances 
are: (duoy dxoveLV Mt. 13. 14 etc. O.T.), eTTidxpia. i-rreOvpyo-alj. 22. 15, 
X a P& X ai /° €t J°* ^. 2 9> X Zvvirviois €Vvirvid£eo-6ai A. 2. 17 O.T , aVeiA?; 
(om. nABD al.) direiX'rjo-oip.eda 4. 1 7, irapayyekia iraprjyyeiX.ap.ev 5. 28, 
dva.8ep.aTL dveOepaTicrapev 23. 12, irpouev^rj tt poo~rjv£aTO Ja. 5. 17 ; 
with which belong opKw M/xoo-ev A. 2. 30, davdrw reXexnaTi}) Mc. 7. 10 
O.T., cp. Herrn. Sim. viii. 7. 3 (d-n-oKTelvai kv davdroj Ap. 2. 23 , 6. 8 
is a different use). Cp. on the similar constructions with the ace. 
§ 34, 3 ; this dative of manner intensifies the verb in so far as it 
indicates that the action is to be understood as taking place in the 
fullest sense. 

4. While there is no trace of a local dative in the N.T. 2 (as is also 
the case on the whole in Attic prose), the analogous temporal dative, 
answering the question When ?, is still fairly frequent : it may of 
course be further elucidated by the insertion, common also in Attic, 
of the preposition Iv. Since the dat. denotes the point of time, not 
the period of time, while Iv can have both these meanings, it is quite 
possible to express 'in the day,' 'in the night' by ev (177) i)pepa, vvkti, 
Jo. 11. 9, A. 18. 9, 1 Th. 5. 2, but the genitive must be used instead 
of the simple dat., § 36, 13 (tw Q'epei in Herrn. Sim. iv. 3 for 'in 
summer' is incorrect, ibid. 5 we have Iv r. 6. eKeivw); on the other 

1 On the other hand we have Mt. 2. 10 ix <x P y ) crav X a P^- v ixeydXtjv <r<f>68pa, with 
a closer defining of the noun, which also may be said to be the raison d'etre of 
the added verbal substantive ; such closer definition is, speaking generally, never 
found with the dat. in the N.T., though Hermas has Sim. ix. 18. 3 Trovrjpevo- 
txevovs TroiKiKais Trovijpiais, 1. 2 icrxveras rrj icr^w cov. With Jo. 18. 32 tTrifiaivuv 
tto'ho Oavdrw ■fjfj.eWev d-rrodv-gaKeiv should be compared 21. 19 orjixalvuv iroiu davdrtp 
So^direi tov deöv : it is evident that in the first passage the cognate verb is by no 
means obligatory, but might be replaced by another verb. 

2 But in Herrn. Vis. iv. 3. 7 we have 7rot'y t6ttuj dwrjXdev, probably through 
the dat. and eis having become interchangeable, § 37, 1 and 2. 


band in a statement about a definite day or a definite night, tbe 
simple dative is no less correct than the dat. with lv. In the N.T. 
we always have tj; tjutq i)plpp Mt. 16. 21 (D reads otherwise), 17. 
23 (ditto), L. 9. 22 (ditto), 24. 7, 46 ; t?) 7rpwTu t)p. tw dftpwv 
Mc. 14. 12, rrj r)p. tq oyBoy A. 7. 8 (with Ivh. 1. 59, but DL omit lv), 
raKTrj i)p. 12. 21, ttolu i)p. (v.l. wpct) Mt. 24. 42, y r)p. L. 17. 29 f. 
(30 I) is different), tt/ r}/x twv o-aßßdTiav L. 13. 14, 16, A. 13. 14, 
16. 13, cp. inf. Tots crdßßaa-Lv, but with «V L. 4. 13, the readings vary 
in 14. 5 ; ry la-^dry rj/x. Jo. 12. 48, with lv 7. 37, 11. 24, with var. 
lect. 6. 39 f., 44, 54; SO ry fiiä. craßßdrwv (cp. for this Mc. 16. 2 1 , 9, 
Jo. 20. 1 ; with lv A. 20. 7); with Ixeivy and Tavry lv is usually 
inserted, but Jo. 20. 19 has ry r)/x. Ik.; and the pronouns are used 
with WKti without lv in L. 12. 20, 17. 34, A. 12. 6, 27. 23 ; always 
ry liriovcry or e\ofievr) -tip. (wktl), but confined to Acts, e.g. 7. 26, 
21. 26; also ry l£//s 21. 1 etc. (but with lv L. 7. 11, where D omits 
lv and there is a strongly supported reading lv tw l£rjs ; the readings 
vary in 9. 37), ry liri.<fat)(TKOva-y k.t.A. Mt. 28. I (yplpa ko.1 yplpy 
'every day' 2 C. 4. 16 after the Hebrew DTI D1\ = Ka8' iKdcrrr/v r)p. 
H. 3. 13). Further instances are: rerdpry <|>v\aKirj ri]s vwcTos-Mt. 
14. 25, t>; ecnrepivr) <£. r. v. D in L. 12. 38, elsewhere in the same verse 
this word takes lv even in T); ttom </>. Mt. 24. 43 ; y ov Sokcltz «pa 44, 
—ota ojpa L. 12. 39, ry wpa tov dvpidparos 1. 10, ry Ivdry oi. Mc. 15. 34, 
ai'-n/ ttJ w. L. 2. 38 etc. (avTjj" T17 i/uKTt Herrn. Vis. iii. 1. 2, 10. 7), as 
well as lv avr. t. w. L. 12. 12 etc. (eValso occurs with Ikcm/q Mt. 26. 55 
etc., and as a v.l. in Jo. 4. 53); /xi$ w. Ap. 8. 10, 16, 19, cp. on the 
alternative use of the ace. § 34, 8. The simple dat. is not used in 
the case of ero?, but lv (L. 3. 1); eVeo-iv reaa-apaKovra — toKoSopyOy 
Jo. 2. 20 is a different use of the dative, for which we have also lv 
(om. w) rpia-lv rj/xipais in the same verse and in 19 (lv ova. B), 
answering the question In how long a time ?, where in classical 
Greek lv is the ordinary construction. 2 With names of feasts we 
have Mc. 6. 21 rots ycveo-tois avrov, Mt. 14. 6 3 ; frequently reus 
adßßacrtv, 'on the Sabbath,' Mt. 12. 1 etc., as well as lv rol$ a. 
L. 4. 31 al., also tw (raßßdrio L. 6. 9, craßßdrw Mt. 24. 20 (lv o\ 
EF al., D o-aßßdTov § 36, 13), Jo. 5. 16 D, 7. 22 B (al. Iv o-., as all 
MSS. read in 23 bis), tw l\oplvw a. A. 13. 44 (lv <r. SevrepoTrpiorw 
L. 6. 1, iv krkpu) 0-. 6. 6); koto, wav adßßarov A. 13. 27 and elsewhere. 
TV] «opTT) tov -n-do-ya L. 2. 41 (with lv D) ; elsewhere Iv t?) e. (Kara 
lopryv 'every feast' Mt. 27. 15 etc.). 'Ere/anus yeveais E. 3. 5, t'Sia 
yei^p A. 13. 36; with lv 14. 16. Kaipois 181'ots 1 Tim. 6. 15. Tr; 
6\i'\pei iVo/i,ei'oi'T€? R. 12. 12, 'in tribulation,' is probably only due 
to assimilation with the neighbouring datives in the same passage. 

1 Mav irpwl tt) pig. r. a., but ACE al. read tt?s pias and D a"Sj, which could be 
explained as partitive. 

2 'Ev Tpurlv r)fi. occurs also in Mt. 27. 40, diä rpiCiv tj/jl. in 26. 61, Mc. 14. 58. 

3 In Mt. the MSS. are divided between yeveviois 5£ yevofiivois NBDL al. , and 
yeveaiuv dt yevofj.hwv CK (cp. Mc. 6. 2) or äyopeviov EG al.; the dative would 
represent an unusual combination of the absolute use of the participle and the 
temporal dative, and is best attributed to scribes who interpolated it from Mc. 

§ 38- 5, § 39- 1-] PREPOSITIONS WITH A CCUSA TIVE. \ 2 1 

5. An unclassical use is that of the dative to denote duration of 
time, instead of the accusative. But this use is only guaranteed for 
transitive verbs, and, in a few instances, for passives : whereas, in 
the case of intransitive verbs (also with a passive in Ap. 20. 3 ; 
and a transitive verb in Mc. 2. 19 ocro v xpovov, L. 13. 8 tovto to eVos, 
A. 13. 18 ws Tea-a-epaKovraerrj xp° vov > ibid. 21), the accusative still 
remains: A. 8. 11 ikcivw XP° V V e^eo-TaKtvai avrovs 'a long time,' 

L. 8. 29 7ToAAo6S XpOVOLS (TVl'l]pTrdK€L OLVTOV, E. 16. 2$ \p. GUCOVIOIS 

<re(Tiy>ipL€vov (but u7re8i'jpr](T€v xpo^ovs Ikolvovs L. 20. 9, and correspond- 
ing phrases occur elsewhere with intrans. verbs) ; in L. 8. 27 the 
readings are divided between XP° VW LK - an d *« (oaro) \p6vuv Ik. (ovk 
eveSvcraro lp.a,Tiov), in Jo. 14. 9 between TocrovTw xpoVw (p-tO' vp.ojv 
et/xt) nDLQ and too-ovtov \p- AB al., as in A. 28. 12 between fjLiepcus 

rpio-iv and ?}yue/3as rpeis (eTre/ieivap.ev). A further instance is cos er&TlV 

TtTpOLKOCTLOLS KO.I TT^VT'l']KOVTa e'S(DK£V KplTO-S A. 13. 20, 1 'throughout 450 

years' (ibid. 18, 21 the accusative, vide supra). The reason for the 
employment of the dative appears to be that the accusative was 
regarded as the direct object, and therefore the writer did not like 
to place another object beside it. 2 


1. The remaining ideas which complete the meaning of verbs 
and nouns are expressed not by a case alone, but with the help of 
a preposition : a practice which in the course of the history of the 
language became more and more adopted in opposition to the 
employment of the simple case. The N.T. still preserves the whole 
collection of the old prepositions proper of the Greek language, 
with the exception of dp<f>i, but along with these the employment 
of prepositions not strictly so called was further developed. 
Prepositions proper may be divided into : I. Those that take one 
case : 1. with ace. dvd, e<'s : 2. with gen. dvri, diro, e£ ck, 77736 : 
3. with dat. ev, o-vv. II. With two cases, i.e. with ace. and gen.: 
Sia, Kara, p.erd, Trepi, virep, viro. III. With three cases : eiri, irapd, 
7rp6s. A simplification is seen in the fact that p.erd, irept, inro are 
relegated from Class III. to Class IL, while dvd (as already happens 
in classical prose) is relegated from II. (dat. and accus.) to I. (the 
loss being on the side of the dative) ; moreover 7t/do's is now not far 
from being confined to the construction of I. 1. Quasi-Prepositions 
all take the genitive, and are strictly adverbs or cases of a noun 
which received the character of prepositions only at a later period, 
but in N.T. times resemble the regular prepositions in that they 

1 The passage is seriously corrupted in most of the mss. , as the statement of 
time has become attached to the preceding clause (19), where also there is a 
transitive verb. 

2 In Josephus, however, there is no perceptible difference between the dative 
and accusative denoting duration of time, W. Schmidt de Jos. elocut. 382 f. 
(except that StarpißeLv and fJveiv always take the accusative). 

I2 2 PREPOSITIONS [§ 39. 1-3. 

never or hardly ever stand without their case : eVexev, x°-P LV ' on 
account of,' x w / n '*> avev, drep, ttA^v 'except,' p-k-^pi, "XP l » * ws 'unto' 
(these last are also conjunctions), ep7rpoo-#er, evunriov, kvavriov etc. 
' before,' oVicrio ' behind,' kirdvcj, ' upon,' iVokotw ' beneath,' fxera^v 
'between.' Naturally no hard and fast line can be drawn between 
preposition and adverb in these cases. 

2. Of prepositions with the accusative, ävd, which has already 
become rare in Attic prose, has well-nigh disappeared in the N.T. 
'Avd fxka-ov (with gen.) 'between' Mt. 13. 25 etc. (Polyb. etc., LXX.: 
modern Gr. dvdpecra) = kv /xkcrw (L. 8. 7 al. ), cp. § 40, 8; dvd /xepos 
'in turn' 1 C. 14. 27- (Polyb.) ; elsewhere it is distributive 'apiece,' 
eXaßov dvd Sijvdpiov Mt. 20. 9 etc., dvd Tnkpvyas e£ Ap. 4. 8, or 'at 
the rate of,' Mc. 6. 40 kXio-icu dvd kKwrov A al. (as in L. 9. 14), 
but with Kara t*BD (Kard being an equivalent for dvd in all the 
above-mentioned uses) ; stereotyped as an adverb (like Kara, § 51, 5) 
Ap. 21. 21 dvd e?s eKacTTos twv irvXtitvutv = Ka.0' efs (Herrn. Sim. ix. 2. 3, 
see § 45, 3). 

3. Els not only maintained its own place in the language, but also 
absorbed the kindred preposition kv ; many instances of this absorp- 
tion appear already in the N.T., although, if we take the practice of 
the N.T. as a whole, kv is considerably more than a match for eis. 
The classical position, namely that kv with the dative answers 
the question 'where?,' eis with accusative the question 'whither?,' 
had from early times been simplified in some dialects by kv taking 
to itself (like the Latin in) both cases and both functions ; but the 
popular Hellenistic language went in the other direction and re- 
duced everything to «Is with accusative, representing ' where ? ' and 
' whither ? ' From this intermixture, which meets us also in the 
LXX. and in Egyptian private records, 1 no writer of narrative in 
the N.T. is free, with the exception of Matthew : not even Luke 
in the Acts, where on the contrary most of the examples are found ; 
John has less of it than the others. Passages : Mc. 1. 9 kßa-n-rta-ßi) 
eis Toy 'lopSdvyjv (kv 1. 5, Mt. 3. 6), 1. 39 Ki]pv<r(riov eis rets cnraywyds 
(kv reus (Twayoiyals EF al.), 2. 1 eis qikov ka-riv AC al. (kv olkm nBDL), 

10. IO (kv AC al. eicreAOovros eis Syr. Sin.), 13. 3 Ka6i)pkvov eis to 
opos (KaOifav eh 2 Th. 2. 4 is correct classical Greek), 13. 9, 16 
o eis rbv dypov (kv Mt. 24. 18), L. 4. 23 yevofieva ('done') eis Tqv 
(wB, eis DL, eV ry al.) Kcufiapvaovp. (1. 44 is also unclassical, e'yerero 
rj <f)(DVi) eis Ta wTct poe, cp. yevko-dai et's 'Iep. A. 20. 16, 21. 17, 25. 15 ; 
correctly eV 13. 5), 9. 61, 11. 7 eis ryv Koirqv euriv (kv D), 21. 37 (?), 
A. 2. 5 eis 'Iep. KdToiKovvres (kv t* c BCDE ; correctly H. 11. 9 -apo>- 
Krjcrev eis yrjv, Mt. 2. 23, 4. 13, cp. Thuc. Ü. 102. 6 KaroLKurdeU eis 
toVous). 2. 17 O.T. cp. 31 kyKaTakeiipeis ri/v ^pv\yv p.ov eis dSijv, 
39 Tois eis ixaKpdv (class, tois fitiKpav [sc. 65uv] diroiKoiHTiv), 7. 4. 12, 
8. 20, 23 (v.l.), 40 evpkOrj eis "Afarov, 9. 21 (kv all MSS. except t*A), 

11. 25 D, 14. 25 (eV BCD), 17. 13 D, 18. 21 D, 19. 22 (eYD), 21. 13, 

1 So in the Egyptian recoi'ds of the Berlin Museum, vol. ii. 385 eis 'AXe^d»'- 
dptidi' £<tti, 423 KivdwevaavTos eis OaXaavau ; Kaibel Epigr. 134 (written at 
Athens in imperial times) eis rvvßov Kel.aat. 

§39-3-4.] WITH ACCUSATIVE. I2 $ 

23. ii bis, 25. 4, 26. 20, Jo. 1. 18 6 a>v eis tov koAttov toü 7raTpds, 
17. 23 iva qhtiv TeTeAeiwyuevoi eis (to) ev, cp. 1 Jo. 5. 8 01 Tpeis eis to ev 
eio-iv. But ecrrrj eis tö [jLtcrov Jo. 20. 19, 26 is classical (Xenophon 
Cyr. iv. 1. 1), cp. 21. 4 (v.l. «ri). 1 On the other hand, the Epistles 
and — what is still more striking — the Apocalypse — show at least in 
the local signification a correct discrimination between eis and ev, 
except in (1 Jo. 5. 8, see above, and) 1 P. 5. 12 (a postscript to the 
letter written in the apostle's own hand) rrp> \apiv — eis fjv o-rrjre 
(Itm/KciTe KLP), which certainly cannot mean ' put yourself into it,' 
but 'stand fast therein.' 2 Els for ev is frequent in Hermas, Vis. i. 
2. 2 eyovcra. ßtßXiov els ras yelpas, ii. 4. 3, Sim. i. 2 etc.; see also 
Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 2 (19. 4?), Clem. Horn. xii. 10. It thus appears 
that at that time this use of eis was still a provincialism, although 
even so the fact that several authors do not share in it is remark- 
able. On the reverse interchange, lv for els, see § 41, 1. 

4. Under the head of intermixture of els and «v may be also 
reckoned L. 1. 20 7rA?/pa>#r/o-ovT<u eis tov Kaipbv avrwv (correctly with 
ev Mt. 21. 41, 2 Th. 2. 6), whereas L. 13. 9 kolv Tronjo-y Kapirbv els to 
peXXov has classical parallels (so es varepov Hdt. 5. 74) ; correct are 
also A. 13. 42 eis to p-era^v <rdß ßarov, 2 C. 13. 2 eis to 77-aAiv (cp. 
classical elo-avdis) ; the remaining temporal uses of eis are still more 
completely in agreement with classical Greek. — A. 7. 53 eXdßere töv 

vd/xov eis Sicrrayas ayyeAtov=ev SiaTayais (cp. Mt. 9. 34 and Other 

.7 .j t 
passages). • — After the Hebrew Dl^tQ ?p, Mc. 5. 34 and Lc. 7. 50, 

8. 48 say waye eis elpyvqv (so also lxx. 1 Sam. 1. 17 etc.): but the 
sense seems to be better given by Ja. 2. 16 virdyere ev elp^vy (so D 
in both passages of Luke). In other instances the caprice of the 
writer in his choice of eis or Iv is not surprising, since Hebrew had 
only the one preposition 3., and classical Greek had in most of these 
cases none at all. Thus 7rio-Teveiv eis alternates with tthtt. ev 
(Mc. 1. 15) and 7tio-t. eVi, in addition to which the oorrect classical 
it. Tivl appears, § 37, 1 ; there is a corresponding interchange of 
prepositions with the subst. ttlo-tis (f) ev Xp., 1) els Xp., beside the 
objective genitive), and with Tre-nroidevai, 3 which also has the simple 
dative : see for this verb and for eX-n-ifav § 37, 2 ; further, with 
ö/zvt'vcu (which in classical Greek takes accus., § 34, 1) in Mt. 5. 35 
ev and eis are found side by side ; with ei'SoKeiv ' to have pleasure ' 
ev is frequent, eis occurs in Mt. 12. 18 O.T. (ov simply n*B, Iv a D) 
and 2 P. 1. 17. The rendering of the Hebrew Ü1??2. is especially 
variable: tw o-£ dvopaTi (instrumental dative) 4 Mt. 7. 22, eis ovopa 

■^'TTnrye vi\pai eh rr\v KoKvtiß-qdpav 9. 7 is supported by parallels from profane 
writers ; phj/eu. however appears not to be genuine (Lachm. ; oni. A al., cp. 11). 

2 1 P. 3. 20 eh rjv (KtßcüTbv) 0X170: diecrw9r](Tai> is ' into which few escaped,' cp. 
2 Tim. 4. 18 (lxx. Gen. 19. 19). 

3 Similarly dappd Iv ' confide in ' 2 C. 7. 16 : but eis 10. 1 = pacts eipu ' toward 

4 The simple dative is further found in (Mt. 12. 21, see § 37, 1, note 2), 
Mc. 9. 38 AX al. (rell. iv), Ja. 5. 10 AKL (rell. iv). 

124 PREPOSITIONS [§ 39. 4-5, § 40. 1-2. 

7rp0(pi'jT0V 10. 4I, €IS TU (p.l)V OVOfAOL 18. 20 (28. 19), e~ l TOJ Ol'OfXOLTl fJLOV 

IS. 5, «V ovöfiaTL Kvpiov 21. 9. Again 'to do to anyone' is ttoulv 
(epyu(W#ai) ti €V Tii'i, ei's nra, Tin (Att. tivu), see § 34, 4 (beside eAe>;/xocn''ras ei's A. 24. 1 7 there is an alternative -xoidv eAeos 
/i€Ttt [Hebr. C"] Tiros L. 10. 37). With the verb ' to announce,' if the 
communication is made to several persons, either ei's or kv is admis- 
sible in Attic Greek (eMreiv eis tov Srjpov, kv tw S-ijfMo) ; so also in N.T. 
Krjpi'o-creiv ei's Mc. 13. 10 («I'D), 14. 9, 1 L. 24. 47, 1 Th. 2. 9 (v/uv «*), 
ei/ 2 C. 1. 19, G. 2. 2, ei'ayyeAi£ecr#ai eis 1 P. 1. 25, ev G. 1. 16. 

5. In place of a nominative (or accusative in the respective 
passages) els is found with the accusative, after a Hebrew pattern, 
with elvai, -yivea-eai, \o"yii;eo-0(u, § 33, 3 : for the sense ' to represent 
as,' 'reckon as' see § 34, 5. But in G. 3. 14 Iva eis to. Wvt) r) euAoyia 
tov 'Aßpaa/x ye'i'?/Tai the simple case would be the dative, cp. § 37, 3, 
or in classical Greek the genitive ; cp. e'yyi£eu' eis for rtvi, § 37, 6 (in 
modern Greek eis is the usual circumlocution for the lost dative, 
cp. ibid. 1 ). — Eis for hri or irp6<s : Jo. 4. 5 'ipytTui eis 7rdAii/ k.t.A. 
'comes to' not 'into,' 11. 31, 38 wrayei (epx€Tai) eis (D 11. 38 eVi) 
to pwi]p,dov, 20. 3 (in 8 eis is correct); in accordance with which 
some would support the reading of DHP in Mc. 3. 7 ui'exwp?/o-ei' eis 
(instead of irpos) tv)v d&\ao-o-av (similarly in 2. 13 Tisch, reads i£rj\6ev 
eis rrjv 66.X. with K*, for Trapd, and in 7. 31 with sBD al.). 2 Even 
Matthew in 12. 41 perevorjo-av eis to Ki]pvyp.a 'Iwva has an instance of 
e/'s for 7rpos, cp. Hdt. 3. 52 7rpos tovto to Kijpvypa oi'tis 01 o'iaAeyeo'Öcu 
vy#eAe ('in consequence of). 


1. AvtC is one of the prepositions that are dying out, being 
represented by some twenty instances in the whole N.T. 'AvO' 3>v 
'for the reason that ' = ' because ' L. 1. 20, 19. 44, A. 12. 23, 2 Th. 
2. 10, classical, also in lxx. 2 Kings 22. i7=1U:X fin?; 'for this' 
= ' therefore' L. 12. 3, cIvti tovtov E. 5. 31 O.T. (eveK-ev toi'toi» lxx. 

and Mt. 19. 6, Mc. 10. 7, ")3~!T"). — Equivalent to a genitive of 
price (similarly classical Greek) H. 12. 16 «irrt ßpwaews /zias cnreooTo 
to. 7r/DiuTOTOKia. — In a peculiar sense, Jo. 1. 16, x^P lv "- VTL X^P iT0 ^ 
iXdßopev, cp. class, yrjv 7rpo yvys eXavveo-Oou ' from one land to another,' 
and frequently eX-rlo-iv e'£ eAVioW and the like. 

2. 'Air<5 has still maintained its place in modern Greek, while it 
has taken over the uses of e'£, which disappears ; in the N.T. this 
mixture has already begun, although (with regard to the frequency 
with which either is employed) e'£ still holds its own fairly easily 

1 This passage might indeed he a case of et's for iv : tiirov iai> Krjpvxdrj tö 
(iiayytXiov eis Ö\ov tov KÖa/xov, \a\rj9rja(Tai k.t.\. 

" Another incorrect use is 56re daKTvXtof eis t))v x (L P a L- 15. 22, class, irepl, see 
Plato Rep. ii. 359 E ; also in the same passage viro5r)fiaTa eis toüs 7tö5os (class, 
dat., Odyss. 15. 36S). 

§ 40. 2-3.] WITH GENITIVE. i 2 c, 

against oVo' (as ev does against eis, § 39, 3). Instances of mixture : 
a-eXOelv (!£- EHLP) coto (om. HLP) Trjs 7roAea>5 A. 16. 39, which 
means not 'to depart from the neighbourhood of the city' (where 
aVo is right), but ' to go out of the city,' 13. 50, 'Ma' 16. 9 d<j> (Trap 
C*DL) i)s e£eßeß\i']Kei eirrd oai/xöVia, H. 11. 15 dcp' rjs (TrarpiSos) 
k^kß-rjo-av. However in most cases in a connection of this kind e£ 
and diro are still correctly distinguished. — Also the partitive e£, 
which itself is scarcely classical (§ 35, 4), is occasionally represented 
by the still more unclassical dwö, Mt. 27. 21 riva dirb rav ovo 
( = class. woTepov toi'toiv), and both are used promiscuously in place 
of the classical genitive in phrases like l to eat of,' 'to take of,' 
etc., § 36, 1. Contrary to Attic usage is nvas rav cb-o tt^s ck/cA?;- 
crias A. 12. 1 'those belonging to the community' (not those who 
came from the community), cp. 6. 9, 15. 5, whereas in A. 10. 45, 

11. 2, Tit. 1. 10 we have ol Ik TrtpiTopfjs correctly (ol Ik t^s Siarpißys 
TavT-qs Aeschin. 1. 54) ; still Hellenistic writers like Plutarch have 
similar phrases. 1 Again, e£ would be the correct preposition to ex- 
press extraction from a place ; but N.T. has i]v 6 <i>iAi7r7ros drrb 
Bydo-abSd, Ik ttj$ 7roAews 'AvSpeov Jo. 1. 44, cp. 45, 2 Mt. 21. 11, 
A. 10. 38, and so always, unless as in L. 2. 4 (e/v- 7roAews Na£), 
7roAts is added as well ; otto is also regularly used of a person's 
country except in John, A. 6. 9, 21. 27, 23. 34, 24. 18 (but in 
classical Greek, Isocr. 4. 82 etc. tovs Ik tt)s 'Ao-ias). 3 See also 
Acts 2. 5. Material : eVSiym a7rb rpix^v Mt. 3. 4. 'After,' 'out of: 
i8vvap.(j)8r]crav drro dcrdeveias H. 11. 34 (classical Greek has Xcvkuv 
rjp.ap euriSelv ck y^eip-aros). 

3. 'Airo has supplanted vtt6 in the sense of 'on account of,' 'for' 
(of things which occasion or hinder some result by their magnitude) : 

aTrb Trjs Ar7T?;s KOifuoptvovs L. 22. 45, Mt. 13. 44, 14. 26, A. 20. 9, 

12. 14 dirb Trjs \apds ovk t"]voi£ev, 22. II, L. 19. 3, (24. 41), Jo. 21. 6, 
Herrn. Vis. iii. 11. 2 ; cp. e£ infra 4. Also tVd with a passive verb 
or a verb of passive meaning is often replaced by otto, although in 
this instance the MSS. commonly exhibit much diversity in their 
readings. A. 2. 22 drroSeSeiypevov curb tot; 6eov, 4. 36 eTriKXr/dels 
Bapi'dyßas a7ro (D vtto) tw a7rocrToAa)i', Mt. 16. 21 7roAAa diib 
(D vtto) tcüv k.t.X. (in the parallel passage Mc. 8. 31 aTrb is only read 
by AX al., the rest have vtto : in L. 17. 25 utto is read b} 7 all). — 'Atto 
further encroaches upon the province of irapd with the genitive : 

aKoveiv euro A. 9. 13, 1 Jo. 1. 5 ; pavOdvaiv drro G. 3. 2, Col. 1. 7 ; 
7rapaXap.ßdv€LV diro 1 C. 11. 23 (irapo. DE, aTroXap.ß. curd followed by 

the same verb with rrapd Herrn. Vis. v. 7) etc.; also in the phrase 
'to come from a person': dirb 'laKwßov G. 2. 12, dirb deov Jo. 13. 3, 
16. 30 (ck 8. 42, irapd 16. 27, cp. § 43, 5). — The use of the old geni- 
tive of separation (§ 36, 9) is far more restricted in the N.T. than in 

1 So Plut. Caes. 35 ol äirb ßov\r)s, members of the senate. 

2 But in 1. 47 eK Naf. Svvarai ti dyadbv dvai ; cp. 4. 22 77 awTTjpia eV tQiv 
'Yovbaiwv icrlv. 

3 'A.tt6 is found already in Homer and poetry: dwb zZirapT-qs Hdt. 8. 114,, 
Soph. El. 691. 

126 PREPOSITIONS [340.3-5. 

the classical language through the employment of dirb (eg) : so regu- 
larly with eXeväepovv, Xveiv, yupitjeiv etc., also with vo-Tepeiv (ibid.). 
Much more remarkable, however, is the diro, which in imitation of 
the Hebrew fO, ' 1 p_37p = 'for,' is employed with verbs meaning 'to 
hide,' 'to be on one's guard,' ' to fear' (similarly in the lxx., Buttm. 
p. 278). See on Kpvineiv ri diro Ttvos § 34, 4 ; <pevyetv, <f>v\do-(Tfiv 
and -eo-dai, (poßdö-ßai, alrr^vveo- 6 at diro tivos § 34, 1 ; to which must 
be added irpoo-e\eiv eatiTw or still more abbreviated irpoo-e\eiv (sc. rov 
vovv 'to have a care for oneself' = 'to beware'), diro tivos L. 12. 1, 
Mt. 7. 15 etc.; in a similar sense 6pd\>, ßXeireiv diro Mc. 8. 15, 12. 38. and StaTYjpelv, however, take «£ (equally unclassical) : eg (d<f>' D) 
3>v SiaTrjpovvTes lauroi's A.. 15. 29, Jo. 17. 25, Ap. 3. 10. In these 
instances also the idea of separation or alienation is expressed by 
diro, as it is in many expressions, especially in St. Paul, which can- 
not be directly paralleled from the classical language: E. 9. 3 dvddefia 
elvai dirb tov Xp., 2 C. 11. 3 prj (fidaprj rd votjpaTa v/Xiov diro Tvys a7rAo- 
t^tos ta}s ev Xp., 2 Th. 2. 2, Col. 2. 20 direOdveTe dirb rwv o~Toi\e'aov tov 
koct/xov, similarly with KaTapyelordai K. 7. 6, G. 5. 4 ; also peravoelv diro 
in A. 8. 22, cp. H. 6. 1, Ik Ap. 2. 21 etc.; SiKaiouv, 9epo.7rf.veLv, Xoveiv 
diro approach still more nearly to Xveiv etc. 1 Cp. in Hermas and 
other writings : 8ia<{>0apfjvai diro Sim. iv. 7, diroTv<f>\ovo-6ai diro Mand. 
v. 2. 7, KoXoßbs diro Sim. ix. 26. 8, Kevbs diro Sim. ix. 19. 2, eprjfios 
diro Clem. Cor. Ü. 2. 3, Ai7roTaKTeiv diro i. 21. 4, dpyeiv diro 33. 1. — 
On the use of diro in reckoning distance (dirb o-raSiiov SeKairevre) see 
§ 34, 8. — On diru irpoo-Mirov rivos infra 9. 

4. On the largely employed «£, «k there is little to remark. It 
takes the place of the subjective genitive 2 C. 9. 2 rb eg v/i&v {ijXos 
(without eg tfBCP), cp. 8. 7 rrj eg vpnov iv r)plv (?) dydiry. For its 
partitive use cp. § 35, 4, § 36, 1 ; with ' to fill ' ibid. 4 (§ 38, 1). In 
place of a genitive of price : i)y6pao-av eg avruv (the 30 pieces of 
silver) t<W dypöv Mt. 27. 7, § 36. 8. In a peculiar sense : tovs 
i'iKwvras €K tou Or/piov (probably = TTjprjo-ai'Tas eavrovs Ik ... , supra 3) 
Ap. 15. 2. Denoting the cause like diro, and classical 1V0, supra 3 : 
Ap. 16. 10 epao-wvTO ras yAoxro-as avrQtv ex rov irovov, cp. II, 21 : 
this book with the Gospel and the first P]pistle of St. John makes 
proportionally the largest use of eg, of any of the N.T. books. 
With attraction eg for ev see § 76, 4. 

5. npb is not represented by very many examples, most of which 
= 'before' of time ; 'before' of place only in Acts (5. 23, v.l.) 12. 6 
(v.l. irpus in D), 14, 14. 13, Ja. 5. 9 (elsewhere epirpoo-Qev, vide 
infra 7); of preference irpb irdvriov Ja. 5. 12, 1 P. 4. 8. On the 
Hebraistic irpb irpoo-ioirov Ttvos infra 9. In a peculiar usage: Jo. 12. 1 
irpb eg rjp.epQ>v tov irdo-ya '6 days before the passover,' cp. Lat. ante 
diem tertium Calendas (so also other writers under the Empire, 

1 But H. 5. 7 claaKovaOeh diro tt)s ev\aßda$ cannot be so taken ' heard (and 
freed) from his fear,' especially as ev\aß. 12. 28 rather denotes the fear of Cod 
(cp. evXaßdadai 11. 7, ev\aßr)s A. 2. 5 etc.) ; therefore render 'on account of his 
piety,' cp, p. 125. 

§ 4°. 5-7.] WITH GENITIVE. i 2 y 

see Kühner Gr. IL- 288, W. Schmidt de Josephi elocut. 513, and 
cp. p-erd § 42, 3, and d-n-o in the reckoning of distance supra 3). 

6. Quasi-prepositions with genitive. 'For the sake of is 'tvtKtv, 
also etVeKev § 6, 4, evcKa A. 26. 21 (Attic, § 6, 1) in Paul's speech 
before Agrippa, also L. 6. 22 (-ev D al.), Mt. 19. 8 O.T. «BLZ (lxx. 
-ev), A. 19. 32 «AB, Mc. 13. 9 B. Not frequent (some 20 instances, 
including quotations) ; it denotes the cause or motive which is given 
for an action, so regularly evexev epov in the Gospels, elsewhere it is 
hardly distinguishable from Sid with accus., see § 42, 1 ; its position 
(which in Attic is quite unrestricted) is always before the genitive 
except in the case of an interrogative (rivos evexev A. 19. 32) or a 
relative sentence (ov eivexev L. 4. 18 O.T.). Xdpiv is still rarer 
(almost always placed after the word). — 'Except,' 'without,' is 
usually \wpts ; &vev (also Attic) only appears in Mt. 10. 29, 1 P. 
3. 1, 4. 9 ; &T€p (poetical : in prose not before imperial times) only 
in L. 22. 6, 35 (often in Hermas, e.g. Sim. v. 4. 5 ; Barn. 2. 6 C, but 
dvev «); itXtjv (Attic) A. 8. 1, 15. 28, 27. 22, Mc. 12. 32, 'Jo.' 8. 10. 
The position of these words (as also of those that follow) is always 
before the case, except in one ex. ov \ W P^ LL 1 2. 4, § 80, 4 ; x- as 
adverb (often in Attic) only appears in Jo. 20. 7. — 'Unto ' is &xP l (s)> 
|A€'xpi(s) as in Attic (on the s see § 5, 4), the former in La, Acts, Paul, 
Hebrews, Ap., Mt. 24. 38 : the latter in Mt. 11. 23, 13. 30 (ews BD), 
28. 15 («*D ews), Mc. 13. 30 (ews D), and sporadically in La, Acts, 
Paul, Hebrews ; both are also used as conjunctions (in an inter- 
mediate stage with the interposition of a relative, &xpt ov, p.. ov ; 
Herrn. Vis. iv. 1. 9 p. ore »* p.. örov « c as), see § 65, 10; 78, 3; 
2«s is also employed in this sense, originally a conjunction through- 
out (its use as a prep, appears in Hellenistic Gk. and the lxx.), 
Mt. 1. 17 diro 'Aßpadp, ews AoutS, ecus rov X.pio~rov etc. (often in Mt., 
also in Mc, La, Acts, rare in Paul and James ; in Hebr. only in 
quotations ; John uses none of the three words); here also we have 
c'ws ov, ew? oTov. "Ews is moreover readily joined with an adverb : 
4'ws non, diro dvwOev ews kcitw, ews dpn, ecus o~qp.epov, on the Other 
hand a\pi (fik^pi) toO vvv, Tt)s cnj/xepov (although Thuc. 7. 83 has 
/xexpi 6ife). It occasionally has the meaning 'within': A. 19. 26 D 
«as 'Ec/xb-ou, 23. 23 (ß text) ews tKarov. Herrn. Mand. iv. 1. 5 dxpt- 
TT/s dyi'ota? oi>x dpapTavei means ' as long as he does not know ' 
(a^pts av dyvoyj = a. av yvio ' until '). 

7. 'Before' (in local sense, rarely irpo, supra 5) is expressed by 
«"(iirpocrGev, evavriov (eVavri, KarevavTi, a7rej'avTt), «vtoirtov (KaT€^tu7rtov). 
Of these expressions ep.7rpoo-6ev and evavriov with the genitive are 
also classical, and in the case of evavriov the construction with the 
genitive is also the predominant use of the word, whereas ep-n-poo-Oev 
is more frequently adverbial ; d-n-evavn is Hellenistic (Polyb.) ; 
evd)7nov (ev-u>TT. before the eyes : tci evdrn-ia is as old as Homer), 
Karevu)TTiov (KaT€VW7ra or kcit' eva)7ra Hom.), evavri 1 (evavra Hom.), 
Karevavn (xarevavra in poetry) all take their origin from the lxx. 

1 "Evavri occurs in inscriptions in translations of Roman senatus consulta, 
Viereck Sermo graecus Senat. Rom. (Gtg. 1888) p. 16, 66. 

128 PREPOSITIONS [S 40. 7-8. 

and are foreign to profane authors even at a later date than the 
N.T., 1 while the N.T. on the other hand has not got avriKpu($) 
(except in A. 20. 15 d. Xiov) naravr. d-n-avr. The expressions serve 

as a rendering for the Hebrew 7.??, "">"t, also for 7*2, and ep-n-po- 
crdev and evavriov also frequently stand in the N.T. in places where 
classical Greek would express itself in a simpler manner. Thus 
Mt. 7. 6 pi) ßdXi/Te rois papyapiras v/xCjv kp-n-povdev ru>v \oipwv = 
class, pi) irpoßdX^re r. p. tois x ot P ot ?- "üpirpoo-üev is also apparently 
used of time = 717)6 (so in class. Greek), in Jo. 1. 15, 30 (or of pre- 
cedence = has obtained the precedence of me 1) ; in adverbial sense 
only in L. 19. 4, 28, Ph. 3. 14, Ap. 4. 6 ; it is employed by well- 
nigh all writers (not Pet., James, Jude, Hebr.), most frequently by 
Mt. 'Evavriov occurs in Mc. 2. 12 ACD (al. eptrp.), L. 1. 8 «AC al. 
(evavri BDE al.), 20. 26, 24. 19 (evuiriov D), A. 7. IO (evavri «), 
8. 32 O.T.; evavri is further used in 8. 21 {kvunriov EHLP) ; Kcn-e- 
vavrt, direv. (where the readings often vary) Mt. 21. 2, 27. 24 etc., 
A. 3. 16, 17. 7, R. 3. 18 O.T., 4. 17 (adverb L. 19. 30); evunriov is 
frequent in Luke (in the first half of the Acts ; in the second half it 
is only found in 19. 9, 19, 27. 35) and in the Apocalypse : in John 
only in 20. 30, 1 Jo. 3. 22, 3 Jo. 6 : in Mt. and Mc. never (Karevanr? 
in a few passages of Paul and in Jude). — ' Before ' in the strictly 
local sense is generally expressed by epirpoo-dev alone (the word has 
only this sense in the Apoc.) : ep-rrp. rov ßijparos A. 18. 17, r&v 
ttoSwv Ap. 19. 10 (B Zvio7tlov), 22. 8 (A Trpb), although the author of 
the Apoc. also says evunriov tov Bpovov ; similarly ' before anyone ' 
is epirpoo-Qev Jo. 3. 28, 10. 4 (ivunriov L. 1. 76 «B) ; epirp. evavriov 
Ivwrnov express ' before anyone ' = before the eyes of anyone, also 
pleasing in anyone's eyes = ' to anyone,' A. 6. 5 tfpecrev evunriov'rov 
irXqdovs = tw TrXijOet, 1 Jo. 3. 2 2 ra. dpeo-rd evioTrtov avrov ; dpaprdveiv 
evw7T. Ttvos = e?s Tiva L. 15. 18, 21 (1 Sam. 7. 6), or nvi, LXX. 
Judges 11. 27, Buttm. p. 150; so a genitive or dative is often 
replaced by this circumlocution, Mt. 18. 24 ovk eorrtv 6eXi)pa ep- 
irpoo-Oev rov Trarpos pov, where ep-n-p. might be omitted, 11. 26, 
L. 15. 10 X a /°* yiverai evwTTiov iw dyykXwv = riov dyyeXwv or tois 
uyyeAois, 24. ir i(pdvi)(rav evuiriov avrdv wcrct Xrjpos = avrois, etc. 
Similar is H. 4. 13 d<pavi)s evioiriov avrov, 13. 21 ; but in the second 
half of the Acts it is only used = class, evavriov. Karevavri, direvavri 
mean 'over against ' = class. naravriKpo, Mt. 21. 2, Mc. 12. 41 etc.; 
but are also commonly used = ' before ' like evavriov, evwiriov, e.g. with 
tou 6\Xov Mt. 27. 24 ; a peculiar usage is direvavri riov Soypdriav 
'contrary to' A. 17. 7 (evavria tois 86ypao-iv or t5v Boypdrwv in 
classical Greek). 

8. The opposite of ep-n-poa-Oev in the local sense is ömo-Oev 'behind,' 
occurring with genitive only in Mt. 15. 23, Lc. 23. 26, rarely also 
as an adverb ; on the other hand öirfo-w (in the older language the 

1 Cp. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1897), p. 40 f., who gives 
instances from the papyri of an adverbial use of ivüwiov, in the sense of ' in 
person,' Latin coram • see also Grenfell-Hunt, Pap. ii. 112. 

§40.8-9.] WITH GENITIVE. i 2 g 

opposite of Trpoa-d), for which Attic had Tr6ppu> 'far off,' the latter 
form occurring occasionally in N.T.) is found fairly often, usually 
as a preposition, more rarely as an adverb. The prepositional use 
of oiTLcrio, which is foreign to profane writers, takes its origin from 
the LXX. (Hebr. "HnX) : epxecrdai oYicrw rtvos ' to follow ' (also 
aKoXovddv ott. tlv., instead of the dative, see § 37, 6), aVeo-r^cre Xavv 
oVicr« avrov A. 5. 37, cp. 20. 30; even 6avp.d(eiv öVicrco Ap. 13. 3 
(§ 38, 2, note 2). Somewhat different is epx^o-Oat, oV. t. Mt. 3. 1 1 
etc., 'to come after (or behind) anyone,' in the Baptist's utterance 
about Christ.- — The compounds, found already in Attic Greek, 
«r-dvw ' above ' and inro-Kd-ra) • underneath ' (used also in Attic with 
the genitive), have a weakened force in the N.T. = 'upon,' ' under' : 
Mt. 5. 14 7rdAts iirdvo) opous Ktifxevi] = Att. or' opovs, L. 8. 16 VTroKarw 
kXivtjs ridi)(Tiv — Att. virb kXLvijv ; tVavw only is used adverbially, 
and this word is also joined with numerals = ' more than,' without 
affecting the case, § 36, 12 (before an adverb Mt. 2. 9 eVavw ov rjv to 
ttcuUov, but D here has rov iraiSiov).- — 'Between' is expressed by 
piera^v (Att.) Mt. 18. 15 etc. (rare); this word is also used adverbially 
in Jo. 4. 31 ev TW p.. = ' meanwhile,' but in the common language 1 
= 'afterwards,' A. 13. 42 eis tö pn-a£i> o-dßßarov, cp. 23. 24 an 
addition of the ß text, Barn. 13. 5, Clem. Cor. i. 44. 2. Beside 
pera^v we have ava p,eo-ov, see § 39, 2 : iv (xe'o-u) (e/x/^ecroj) with genitive 
'among,' 'between,' Mt. 10. 16 (B els p.ko-ov), L. 10. 3 (p.eo-ov D, 
vide infra), 8. 7 (/xecrov D), 21. 22 etc. = Hebrew Tprs and classical 
ev or cts, since ' where 1 ' and ' whither 1 ' are not distinguished in 
this instance (eis p^eo-ov never occurs except as a var. lect. in Mt. 
10. 16 vide supra, 14. 24 D for p\ko-ov ; but of course we have et's tö 
p.ko~ov without a subsequent case). Other equivalents are p-ko-os 
adjective Jo. 1. 26, L. 22. 55 BL (v.l. ev /xeo-w, fter') or jueo-ov adverb 
(cp. modern Greek pecra), Ph. 2. 15 reKva deov p.kcrov yei/eas cr/coAia«, 
L. 10. 3 D, vide supra (adj. or adv. in Mt. 14. 24, L. 8. 7 D). To 
these must be added e* p.e<rov with gen. = "rpSV52 Mt. 13. 49 etc. 
= class. e£ ; Sia p-ecrov with gen. (tprn) L. 4. 30 8ie\9cov Sea p.eo~ov 
avTwv = 8cd, (see also § 42, 1). 

9. To express a prepositional idea by a circumlocution, the sub- 
stantives irpöo-wirov, \tip, <rrd|ia are employed with the genitive, 
similarly to /xeo-ov, in constructions modelled on the Hebrew. 'A™ 
Trpoo-coirov riv6<s = dir6 or irapd with gen. after verbs signifying 'to 
come' or 'to go,' A. 3. 19, 5. 41 : = the N.T. diro (supra 3) after 'to 
drive out,' 'to hide,' 'to fly' A. 7. 45, Ap. 6. 16, 12. 14, 20. 11,= 

■0370. ITpb tt/doowou Mt. 11. 10 O.T. (''pop), so L. 1. 76 («B cvcüttiov), 
9. 52, even (in A. 13. 24, a sermon of Paul) 7rp6 irpoo-wrrov rijs do-oSov 
avrov 'before (in advance of) him.' Kara Trpoo-oiirov = coram is also 
a recognised usage in profane writers, and in this sense is correctly 
employed in A. 25. 16 (without a gen.); elsewhere as in 3. 13 koto 
irpoo-uDirov III Aaron, L. 2. 31 KaT<x irp. Trdvruw twv Aawv it corresponds 

1 In this sense it is found in Plut. Moral. 240 b and Josephus. 

^o PREPOSITIONS [§ 40. 9, § 41. 1. 

to the Hebr. *«£2. ; similarly eis irp. nvos 2 C. 8. 24 (eis 7r/>. without 
case, and with eis in place of e'v, Herrn. Vis. iii. 6. 3). — XtCp : eis 
Xeipds (T3) nvos 7rapaot.86vat, 'into anyone's power,' 'to anyone' 
Mt. 26. 45 etc., L. 23. 46, Jo. 13. 8, H. 10. 31 (e'/iTreo-eiv eis x- # € °u, 
cp. Polyb. 8, 20. 8 iiiro Tas twv k-xßpQ>v x. 7T67rT€iv ; ir7ro\€Lpios) ; for 
which is substituted ev tv/ x- SeSwKev (eV for eis, § 41, 1) in Jo. 3. 35. 
'Ev (a-vv ABCDE) x"pi dyyeXovA. 7. 35 (cp. G. 3. 19) T3, ' through,' 
' by means of.' 'Ek x €L P^ nvos ' out of the power of anyone ' (T3?) 
L. 1. 71, A. 12. 11 e£eiAaTo p.e Ik \. 'HpfLSov, cp. in classical Gk. 
Aesch. 3. 256 ex tw x eL P^ v e^eAeo-Öai twv QiXlttttov (here used as a 
stronger and more vivid expression), etc. Aia x ec pos, 6Vi twv x eL puv 
= Sia 'through,' 'by means of Mc. 6. 2 and frequently in Acts 
(2. 23, 5. 12 etc.), of actions; Sia <rro|AaTos, on the other hand, is 
used of speeches which God puts into the mouth of anyone, L. 1. 70, 
A. 1. 16 etc. Further, for Aoyoi 01 diro nvos or nvos the fuller and 
more vivid 01 eK7ro/>eu6/xevoi ex (Sia) (TTop.. nvos is used in Mt. 4. 4 
O.T. =lxx. Deut. 8. 3, L. 4. 22 etc.; for a/<oueiv nvos we have o.k. 
ex (uirb, Sia) rov err. tivos L. 22. 71, A. 1. 4 D, E. 4. 29 etc.; cp. 
L. 11. 54 dr/pevcrat n e« t. ctt. chjtou, a word from him ; eVi 0-Top.a.Tos 
'on the assertion of Mt. 18. 16, and many similar exx.; o-ropa was 
moreover utilized in classical Greek to coin many expressions of this 
kind. 'Ek o-To/xttTos can also mean 'out of the jaws,' 2 Tim. 4. 17. 
— On 686v as preposition (versus) Mt. 4. 1 5 see § 34, 8, note 1 . 


1. 'Ev is the commonest of all prepositions in the N.T., notwith- 
standing the fact that some writers (§ 39, 3) occasionally employ eis 
instead of it. (The reverse change, namely, the misuse of ev for eis, 
can only be safely asserted to take place in a very few cases in the 
N.T. Thus ev /-leery is used in answer to the question 'whither?', 
§ 40, 8; compare also elo-rjX6e 8taXoyio-px>s ev aÜTois L. 9. 46 'came 
into them,' 'into their hearts' [see next verse]: Ka-re/foivev ev tv) 
KoXvpßyOpa in a spurious verse Jo. 5. 4 [Herrn. Sim. i. 6 dweXOys ev 
Trj xoAei o-ov, Clem. Horn. i. 7, xiv. 6]. But i£rjX6ev 6 Xoyos ev t?/ 
'IowWa L. 7. 17 [cp. 1 Th. 1. 8] means 'was spread abroad in J.'; 
in Ap. 11. 11 eio-^AÖev ev airrois is only read by A, aiVois CP, «s 
avrovs nB ; classical authors can use ev with n#evai and icrravai, and 
with this may be compared Sioovai ['to lay'] e'v rß x £l P^ tivos Jo. 3. 35 
[§ 40, 9 ; Clem. Cor. i. 55. 5 7rapeoWev 'OAo<^epv>/v ev x et P L ^Acias], 
or ev Trj KapSia 2 C. 1. 22, 8. 16 ; no conclusive evidence can be 
drawn from the metaphorical usage in L. 1. 17 ev <£pov?yo-ei SikcuW, 
with the meaning ' so that they have the wisdom ' ; KaXeiv ev elprjvy 
and similar phrases). — The use of ev receives its chief extension 
through the imitation of Hebrew constructions with £. Under this 
head comes its instrumental employment, § 38, 1 ; also its use to 
indicate the personal agent : ev tw dpxovTi (through) twv ScujuoviW 

§41-1-2.] WITH DATIVE. 131 

lk-/3aAAet Ta Satfxovia Mt. 12. 24 (9. 24), Kpiveiv t?)v oikov/xIvi/v iv 
dvSpi A. 17. 31 (1 C. 6. 2). 1 In the same way no doubt is to be 
explained its use to express the motive : A. 7. 29 e<pvyev Mwvo-rjs iv 
tw Adyw TotVoj 'on account of (DE have another reading l^n'yd'6'ei'crev 
yiwvcrrjv iv 'with'): Mt. 6. 7 Iv ry TroXvXoyia. avTwv elcraKOV(rdij<rovTai : 
Iv toi'tw 'on this account' A. 24. 16, Jo. 16. 30: iv <S 'since,' 
'because' H. 2. 18, or 'on which account' 6. 17; to the same 
category belongs the use of ev with verbs expressing emotion, e.g. 
Xcupeu', § 38, 2. Another instance of instrumental Iv is Ap. 5. 9 
"/yydpacras Iv tu aipari crov, cp. A. 20. 28 ; this phrase iv tw alfxari 
(tov Xp.) is found in various connections in the Pauline Epistles and 
Acts (R. 3. 25, 5. 9 etc.), where the very indefinite and colourless 
meaning of iv does not help to determine the sense more accurately. 
On IvSeoV/xevos iv and similar phrases see § 34, 6, note 2 ; on Iv of 
accompaniment (with 'army' etc.) § 38, 3. Of manner (vide ibid.): 
Iv to.\u (class.) L. 18. 8 etc., Kptveiv iv biKaLoo-vvy = SiKaltos A. 17. 31, 
Ap. 19. 11, Iv 7racn/ aa"(£aAeta = da^aXia-rara A. 5. 23, Iv (77-cuxy) 
irapprjo-La ' freely,' ' Openly ' etc. Again dvdpioTros iv Trvei'paTt 
uKaödpTw Mc. 1. 23, 5. 2 must mean 'with an unclean spirit ' = e'x wv 
-vevp.a ukuO. (3. 30 etc.), although a passage like R. 8. 9 v/ieis Se ovk 
«ore Iv crapKi aAA' kv irveti|xaTi, iiTrep Trvevpa Oeov oiKtl iv i\üv' et Si tis 
-veiym Xpiarov ovk ex. 41 k.t.A. is calculated to show the constant 
fluctuation of the meanings of Iv and of the conceptions of the rela- 
tion between man and spirit. Another phrase with an extremely 
indefinite meaning is Iv Xpio-no (Kvpiw), which is attached again and 
again in the Pauline Epistles to very different ideas. 

2. Occasionally Iv appears to stand for the ordinary dative proper. 
1 O 14. 11 icrojxai tw AaAowTi ('for the speaker ') ßdpßapos, Kai 6 
AaAwv Iv «>ol ßdpßapos 'for me,' instead of l/W, which Paul avoided 
because it might have been taken with AaAwv. Cp. G. 1. 16 
aTTOKaXvipai tov vtov avrov iv ip.01 'to me ' ('in me,' i.e. 'in my spirit' 
would be an unnatural phrase) ; in 2 C. 4. 3 Iv tois oVoAAi'pevots «tti 
K€KaXvp.p.ivov 'for' is a better rendering than 'among'; 2 C. 8. 1 
Tqv \dpiv tt/v 8e8op,ivr]v iv Tats iKKXrjo-taLs tvjs Maze., cp. A. 4. 12 
Avhere D omits the Iv ; but 1 Jo. 4. 9 Iv toi'tco i<pavepu)0y] r) dyd.-Kt] 
tov deov iv rjp.LV means ' towards US,' and is like 7rotetv 'iv Ttvt, yiveaOai 
ev Ttvt, where moreover either the dative or eis can stand, § 34, 4. — 
'Ev has the meaning of l in' or 'by' with p-avOdvuv 1 C. 4. 6, 
ytvwo-Keiv L. 24. 35 etc. (likewise classical); but we also find yiv. Ik 
L. 6. 44 etc., kcito. Tt 1. 18. For ' to swear by ' d^vt'vat Iv see § 34, 1 
(instead of the accus.) ; for 6p.oXoyelv ev Ttvt 'to profess allegiance to 
anyone' (a Syriac expression) Mt. 10. 32, L. 12. 8, for which an 
accus, or two accusatives may be used, see § 34, 5. 'Ev (ivo-Tr/pcio 
XaXovp.€v cro<£tav 1 C. 2. 7 = ' as a mystery ' (so in classical Greek). 
On Iv in temporal sense see § 38, 4. 

1 In R. 11. 12 iv 'HXt'a Xe'7« 77 ypacprj might be interpreted in the same way, ' by 
Elias,' cp. iv ti3 'Clarje 9. 25, iv Aavid H. 4. 7, kv irepcü Trpcxprp-rj \iyei Barn. 6. 14. 
But others class these with iv riß vö/ju^ and the like. 

I3 2 PREPOSITIONS [§ 41. 3, $5 42. 1. 

3. Svv in classical Attic is limited to the sense of 'including,' 
whereas ' with ' is expressed by p.erd ; but the Ionic dialect and 
afterwards the Hellenistic language kept the old word o~vv in addition 
to fxerd, and it is consequently found in the N.T., although very 
unequally employed by the different authors, and only occurring 
with any frequency in Luke (Gospel and Acts) and Paul, while it is 
unrepresented in the Apocalypse and the Epistles of John, and 
almost unrepresented in his Gospel. 1 There is scarcely anything 
noteworthy in the way in which it is employed. 2w 7rao-t toi'tois is 
'beside all this' (lxx., Josephus, see W.-Gr.) L. 24. 21. On dp.a and 
crvv see § 37, 6. 


1. Aid with accusative, local 'through' (poetical) only in L. 17. 11 
8ti'if)\eTo Sid fxea-ov (nBL, D omits Sid, § 40, 8 ; A al. Sid fik<ro\>) 
2a/mpdas /cat TaAiAaias, an inadmissible reading ; elsewhere ' on 
account of,' denoting not only motive and author, but also (what in 
classical Greek is expressed by eVe^a) aim,' 2 so that the modern Greek 
meaning 'for' is already almost in existence : Mc. 2. 27 to a-dßßarov 
Sid tw dvdpoiTTOv kyevero kuI ov)( 6 dvOp. Sid tu crdßßaTOV, Jo. 11. 42, 
12. 30, 1 C. 11. 9 etc. — With genitive 'through' of place, time, and 
agent as in classical Greek. The temporal Sid also expresses an 
interval of time that has elapsed: St' erwv 7rAetdvcov 'after several 
years' A. 24. 17, G. 2. 1 ; and further (not classical) the period of 
time within which something takes place : A. 1. 3 Si' t)p.epwv reo-o-epd- 
KovTOL 6TrTa.vöp,evos avrols ' during forty days ' (not continuously, .but 
at intervals, as was already noticed by the Scholiast following 
Chrysostom), Sid wktos per noctem ' at night ' (class, wktos, vvxTiup), 
5. 19 etc.; L. 9. 37 D Sta tt/s i)p.epas 'in the course of the day.' 
Instead of the agent, the author may also be denoted by Sid (as in 
Aeschylus Agam. 1486 Stat Aibs Travairiov Travepyera) : R. 11. 36 e'£ 
avrov (source) Kat St' aTJTOu (the Creator) /cat ets airrbv to. 7ravTa, cp. 
H. 2. 10 St' oV (God) rd irdvTa /cat 6Y ov to, 7r., 1 C. 1. 9, G. 1. 1 3 (but 
the use is different in 1 C. 8. 6 eis öeos 6 irar^p, e£ oS to. 7ravTa Kai 
rjp.eis els awTov, Kai eis Kvpios 'I. X., St' ov [ov B] to, vavra Kal i)pels Si 
avrov, cp. Jo. 1. 3 ; Mt. 1. 22 to pt)dlv xnrb Kvptov 8id toG —pocpijTOV, etc.). 
— Indicating mode and manner, Sta Aoyov ' by way of speech,' 'orally 
A. 15. 27 ; also the circumstances in which a man is placed in doing 
anything: R. 2. 27 6 Sta ypdpp.aros Kai Trepiroprjs Trapaßdrijs i'6p.ov, 
'who has the written statute withal,' 14. 20 Sid irpoo-i<6p.p.aTos ko-QUiv 

1 See Tycho Mommsen's book, Beiträge zu d. Lehre v. d. gr. Priipositionen 
(Berlin, 1895), where on page 395 the statistics of avv and fierd in the N.T. are 
concisely given. In John avv occurs in 12. 2, 18. 1, 21. 3 (perd very frequently) ; 
in Paul it is absent from 2 Th., 1 and 2 Tim., Tit., Philem. ; as it is also from 
Hebr. and 1 Pet. [For the distinction between avv and uerä see also West- 
cott's note on Jo. 1. 2. Tr.] 

2 Cp. Hatzidakis Einl. in d. ngr. Gramm. 212 f. 

3 It stands for vir6 with a passive verb in Herrn. Sim. ix. 14. 5, Vis. iii. 13. 3. 

§ 4 2. 1-3.] WITH TWO CASES. I33 

' with offence,' end -oAAüjv oaKpvwv 2 C. 2. 4 : also undoubtedly Si' 

d<x#ei'€ias (not -evetav) evrjyyeXicrdp-qv vp.iv G. 4. 13 'in sickness,' as 

the Vulgate per (not propter) infirmitatem. 1 — In a peculiar use in an 
urgent petition = ' by ' (Attic 77730s tivos) : Ft. 12. 1 -apaKaXQ vpds Sid 
-wj' oLKTipfjLüJv rov deov 15. 30, 1 C. 1. 10 and elsewhere in the Pauline 
Epp. (cp. Kara. nvos infra 2). 

2. KaTo. with accusative occurs frequently and in various senses, 
but in general these agree with the classical uses. As the use of 
Kara, with accus, as a circumlocution for a genitive occurs frequently 
in the Hellenistic language (■>) Kara rbu i/Aiov Tropeia 'the course of 
the sun'), so in the N.T. one may adduce : A. 18. 15 vöpov rov xaff 
vpds 'the law in force with you, your law,' cp. 26. 3, 17. 28, E. 1. 15 
rrjv Ka8' vp.ds ttlcttlv, A. 16. 39 D to naff vp.ds = rb vpkrepov 7rpa.yp.a1, 
and Ft. 1. 15 rb Kar kpk -p66vp.ov = i) €/x?) TrpodvpLia 1 (but it is better 
to take to koit' e/xe as quod in me est, and then read 7rp66vp.o$ with the 
Latin authorities and supply eifii, § 30, 3 ; cp. to Kara o-apxa 9. 5 and 
other phrases, § 34, 7). — The distributive Kara has become stereo- 
typed as an adverb (cp. dvd, § 39, 2) in Ka6' els, see § 51, 5. — In the 
headings to the Gospels Kara AlcrrÖaiov etc. the author of this 
particular form of the Gospel is denoted by Kara, cp. § 35, 3 ; with 
this is compared (W.-Gr.) t) TraAcud Siaör//o; Kara, rovs eß8opi]Korra, 
and 2 Mace. 2. 13 tois i'—opvripario-p.oZs rots Kara. ±\eepiav, which 
perhaps means ' which bear the name of X.' 

With the genitive the instances are far less numerous ; Kara mos 
most often means ' against someone ' in a hostile sense, and indeed 
in the Hellenistic language it also takes the place of Attic e-i nva 
(eo-riv and the like) : Mt. 12. 30 o p.i] &v ep.ov Kar ifiov ecrriv 
(Demosth. 19. 339 hii TrfV irokiv ecrriv, but Polyb. 10, 8. 5 Kara rrj$ 
~6Xeujs vTreXdpßavov dvat), whereas the Attic Kara 'against' is used 
after verbs of speaking, witnessing etc. — Earely in local sense : Kara, 
rov Kpi]p.vov Mt. 8. 32 etc. ' down from '; Kara Ke^aXrjs e'xwi' 1 C. 11. 4, 
opposed to d.KaraKaXv- no rrj KtcpaXrj ('hanging down over the head,' 
'on the head') ; 'throughout' A. 9. 31 Ka6' öXr/s rrjs TorSaias, 10. 37, 
L. 4. 14, 23. 5 (Hellenistic, Polyb. 3, 19. 7 Bteo-Trdpi-jcrav Kara, rrjs 
rijo-ov), in this sense always with oAos and confined to Luke's Gospel 
and Acts (with accus, 01 ovtes Kcrrd tvjv 'lovSatav A. 11. 1, it means 
simply 'in'). A peculiar use is 7) Kara ßddovs Trrwxeia 2 C. 8. 2 'deep' 
or 'profound poverty' (Strabo 9, p. 419 dvrpov koIXov Kara ßddovs, 
W.-Gr.). — For its use with ofivuvat, (e£)opKi£eiv Mt. 26. 63, H. 6. 13, 16, 
see § 34, 1 (Kara rov Kvplov i']püJri]o-a ' entreated by the Lord ' Herrn. 
Vis. iii. 2. 3). 

3. MeTd with accusative in local sense 'after,' 'behind' only 
occurs in H. 9. 3 p.erd to Sevrepov Karairkrao-pa (answering to 7rp6, an 
unclassical use); elsewhere it always has temporal sense 'after.' 
Ou fjierd TToAAds TaiVas fj/iepas A. 1. 5 is ' not many days after to-day,' 
cp. -p6, § 40, 5. — Mcto. with genitive has to itself (and not in com- 

1 [Still no Greek MS. has the genitive in this passage. See Lightfoot ad loc. 

1 34 PREPOSITIONS [§ 42. 3-4. 

raon with 0-1V) the meaning of 'among,' 'amid,' Lierd twv veupdv 
L. 24. 5, perd oVo/xwv ekoyladrj (Mc. 15. 28) L. 22. 37, O.T. (Hebr. 
"SI, lxx. ev), as in classical poets ; in the sense of 'with' it is inter- 
changed with (tvv, § 41, 3, but with this limitation that with expres- 
sions which imply mutual participation, such as TroXep.elv, elpqvevetv, 
(TVfj,<fjij)V€Lv, <£iAo?, AaAeiV (Mc. 6. 50 etc.) and others (§ 37, 6), perd 
tlvos and not crvv nvi is used in place of or by the side of the 
simple dative (Hebr. Di?, class, dative or 717305); it is likewise the only 
preposition used to express accompanying circumstances, /«to (f>6ßov 
etc., § 3, 3 (class.), and in the sense of 'to' (Hebraic) in ttou'iv eXeos 
perd rti'os L. 10. 37, cp. 1. 58 (Herrn. Sim. v. 1. 1 even has Trepl 
7rdvT(nv S)v iTToirjcre fxer e/xoG 'to me,' which differs from the use of the 
phrase in A. 14. 27 where p.erd = ' with '). On the whole the use of 
perd far outweighs that of o-vv (the number of instances of the former 
word is nearly three times that of the latter), though in individual 
books o-lV has equally strong or even stronger attestation (in Acts). 

4. HtpC with accusative (not very frequent) is used in local and 
temporal sense for 'about'; so ol irepl avrov Mc. 4. 10, L. 22. 49 
= ' his disciples' ; but ol irepl riauAov A. 13. 13, as is the case with 
similar phrases in the literary language, includes Paul ; we even 
have irpos ras irepl Mdpßav Kai Maptav Jo. 11. 19 A al. (as often in 
later writers) to denote Martha and Mary only, but the phrase can 
hardly be considered genuine ; l it has a further use, which is also 
classical, to denote the object of the action or of the pains expended 
(not the subject of speech or thought, which is tivos), with 
eiridvftiai Mc. 4. 19 (om. D), with Trepicrirdcrdai, Tvpßd^ecrdai L. 10. 40 f., 
with ipydrai A. 19. 25. Paul, wlw only began to use irepC nva at the 
time of writing the Philippian epistle, uses it generally for 'concern- 
ing' (something like Plato's Trovrjpbv irepl to o-wpa, 'injurious with 
regard to'): Ph. 2. 23 to. Trepl ep.e, 1 Tim. 1. 19 irepl ttjv ttlo-tiv 
evavdyi](Tav, 6. 4, 21, 2 Tim. 2. 18, 3. 8, Tit. 2. 7 (ra irepl 7W 7ri'pyov 
Herrn. Vis. iii. 3. 1). 

n«pi with genitive (extremely common) most often in such phrases 
as 'to speak,' 'know,' 'have a care' etc., 'concerning' or 'about'; 
at the beginning of a sentence or paragraph ' as concerning ' 1 C. 7. 1 
etc. (class.); also 'on account of' (class.) with Kpiv&rdai, eyKakelv, 
ev\api(TTeiv, epurdv (entreat), Seicröcu, Trpoo-ev^ecrdai, irpcxpao-tv (an 
excuse) ex 6 * 1 '» aivetv etc., in which cases it often passes over to the 
meaning of 'for' and becomes confused with virtp : Jo. 17. 9 ov -epl 
tov koctliov tpwTw, dAAd Trepl Syv S^ScüKcts poi. It is used as absolutely 
equivalent to virep in Mt. 26. 28 to Trepl (D vrrep) JToAAioV eV\rru- 
/xevov (in Mc. 14. 24 irepL is only read by A al.), 1 C. 1. 13 eo-ravpcodi] 
irepl v/zwv Only BD* (al. vrrep), A. 26. I Trepl («AC al.; virep BLP) 
o-eavTov Aeyetf, G. 1. 4 (virep N C B), H. 5. 3 Kaöws Trepl eax>TOV, ovt<d<; 
Kal irepl tou Aaor irpocr(f>epeiv Trepl (virep C C D C : al. as in ver. 1) u/zapriwr, 
cp. 10. 6, 8 O.T., 18, 26, 13. 11, 1 P. 3. 18, Mc. 1. 44, L. 5. 14. 

1 TTpo? ttjv M. Kal M. «BC*L al., similarly without r\)v D ; Iva. irapa/j-vdrjawfTai 
ttjv M. Kal tt)v M. Syr. Sin. 

§42.4-6.] WITH TWO CASES. 1 35 

With verbs expressing emotion : Mt. 9. 36 eWAa-yx^io-ö»; -n-epl 
avTu>v (i.e. twv o^Awv ; elsewhere the verb has kiri nva or Ittl tivi, 
§§ 36, 7; 43, 1 and 3), Mt. 20. 24 and Mc. 10. 41 dyavaKrelv Trepi 
twos, 'concerning anyone' (classical Greek has Trepi twv Trpay6zvT<av 
Plat. Ep. vii. 349 d), L. 2. 18 Oavpdfav Trepi ('concerning a thing'), 
all these constructions hardly classical ; Trepi TrdvTuv eioSovcrdai 
'in every respect' 3 Jo. 2. Ilotfo-ai irepl avrov ('to do with him') 
L. 2. 27 also appears to be an incorrect phrase (-n-epl auToV would be 
better, vide supra, N.T. says cu'tw or «V aürw) • Xayxdvew (' to draw 
lots') irepi Tivos Jo. 19. 24 may be compared with the classical 
p.d)(€(r6ai Trepi Ttvos. 

5. 'Yire'p with accusative (not frequent) 'above,' denotes superi- 
ority (no longer found in local sense) ; hence it is used with the com- 
parative, § 36, 12; it is used adverbially in the Pauline epistles i-n-ep 
Xiav (or vizepXiav §§ 4, 1; 28, 2) 2 C. 11. 5, 12. 11 virep «k Trepurcrov or 
vTrepeKTT. 1 Th. 3. 10, E. 3. 20, similarly or v-n-ep eK-n epia-a-ds (BD*FG) 
1 Th. 5. 13 ; or it stands by itself 2 C. 11. 23 8idi<ovot Xpia-Tov elcrtv ; 
xnrep (to a higher degree) eyio (Siax. Xp. elp.i), cp. the classical words 
vTrepXafjiirpos, v-n-epe^aKio-yiXioi ([Demosth.] 59. 89), whereas in the 
N.T. it is impossible in all cases to carry out the compounding of 
the two words into one. — 'Yirap with genitive ' for,' opposed to Kara 
Ttvos Mc. 9. 40 etc., is much limited in its use by the substitution of 
■n-epi (supra 4), while the reverse change (Xeyeiv virep 'to speak 
about ') which is common in Attic and Hellenistic Greek (as also in 
the LXX.), is found more rarely and is almost confined to Paul : 
Jo. 1. 30 virep (wept N U A al.) ov elirov, 2 C. 8. 23 e'ire virep Titov ('as 
concerning,') 12. 8 i-n-ep tovtov irapeKaXeo-a ('on this account,' 'on 
behalf of this,' cp. supra 4 irepi), 2 Th. 2. 1, Kavxdadat v-rrep often in 
Paul, also (f>v(Tiova-dai vTrep, <f>poveiv vrrep (in Ph. 1. 7 ' to think upon,' 
in 4. 10 'to care for'). Also the object to be attained may be 
introduced by vrrep, 2 C. 1. 6 vrrep tt}s iftiov TrapaKX-qcrewi ('to'); SO 
also Ph. 2. 13 vTrep (<ov>1) rrjs evSoKias (God's; C adds ou'tou) 
TrdvTa TroLeire (the first words are not to be taken with the preceding 

6. 'Y-rro with accusative (not very frequent ; in John only in 
1. 49 of his Gospel, never in the Apocalypse 1 ) 'under,' answering 
the questions ' where 1 ' and ' whither 1 ' (the old local use of iVo 
tivos and iVo Tivi has become merged in iVd ™), is used in literal and 
metaphorical sense; in temporal sense only in A. 5. 21 wo tov 
öpßpov, sub, circa (class.). 2 — 'Yir6 with genitive 'by,' denoting the agent, 
is used with passive verbs and verbs of passive meaning like irA^ya« 
Xap,ßdveiv 2 C. 11. 245 s in some instances its place is taken by 
diro, § 40, 3 ; see also Sid, supra 1. 

1 The Apoc. has vwoKdru (§ 40, 8) instead, which is also found in John's 
Gospel 1. 51. 

2 Herrn, often uses vwb x«P a m a peculiar way ' continually,' Vis. iii. 10. 7, 
v. 5. s, Mand. iv. 3. 6. 

3 Herrn, has the peculiar phrases in Sim. ix. 1. 2 inrb wapdevov ewpo/cos and 
vtto äyyiXov ß\tirei.s ' under the guidance of ' — ' the angel makes you to see,' cp. 
Ap. 6. 8 diroKTeivai ev ... /cat virb tCov Orjpiuv = iroieiv dirodaveiv virb k.t.X. 

136 PREPOSITIONS [§43.1-2. 


1. 'EirC is the single preposition the use of which with all three 
cases is largely represented. The case, however, which it takes 
with far the most frequency is the accusative. This is used not 
only, as in classical Greek, in answer to the question Whither 1 
(including such constructions as that with o-n/vcu, where eis may 
take the place of art, § 39, 3), but also not infrequently as a sub- 
stitute for genitive or dative, in answer to the question Where 1 : 
Mt. 9. 2 (Mc. 2. 14, L. 5. 27) Ka.6rJLi.evos eVi to tcAwviov, Mc 4. 38 eVi 
to 7rpo(TK€(f>äXaiov (D e7T6 Trpo(TK€cf)aXalov) KaOevSiov, L. 2. 25 TrvevLia 
äyiov ?)v eV avrov, cp. 40 (where D has ev at>T(o), Jo. 1. 32 ejieivev eV 
avrov (33), A. 1. 15 eVi to auTo ' together ' (so fairly often in Acts, and 
occasionally in Paul and elsewhere, used with eiVai etc.; LXX. Joseph.), 
2 C. 3. 15 eVi t»)j> Kapoiav avrcov KetTai, A. 21. 35 eyei'CTO eVi tois 
dvaßadfxovs, cp. yivecrdai eis § 39, 3 (but eVi tivos L. 22. 40), Mt. 
14. 25 irtpnraTMV eiri tyjv SaXacnrav WB al., gen. CD al., 26 gen. 
«BCD al., ace. EFG al.; 28 f. all MSS. eirl tu. vöara ; in Mc. 6. 48 f.. 
Jo. 6. 19 the gen. is used, which in the passage of John some would 
understand as in 21. 1 in the sense of 'by the sea,' although we 
should not use such an expression, but 'on the shore.' Moreover 
with the metaphorical senses of e^i the accusative is more widely 
prevalent than it strictly should be : not only do we have Kaöto-Tavai 
8tKa<TT))v ifi v/xas (direction whither?) L. 12. 14, but also ßacriAeixrei 
€7rt Toy otK-ov 'IdKiüß 1. ^^ (Hebraic, cp. inf. 2, § 36, 8), eVi öAi'ya ?)s 
7ricrTOS, €Trl 7toXXujv o"6 Karao-Tijcno Mt. 25. 21, (TirXay^L^ojxai e7ri Tuv 
6\Xov 15. 32, Mc. 8. 2, cp. Herrn. Mand. iv. 3. 5, Sim. ix. 24. 2 
(which in Attic must at least have been eVi tw ... ), p) kAou'ctc eV £p.e 

L. 23. 28, eXirifylV, TTLCTT€VUV l , TTICTTIS, TTtTTOldtVai llTl TIVO. OV ItTL Tll'l, 

§ 37, 1 alternating with eis nva (eV tivi), Mc. 9. 12 f. ykypa-KTai «ri 
tciv vlbv tou avdpuTov ' concerning ' (Att. prefers eiri nvt). The 
following further instances may be noticed : A. 4. 2 2 6 avOpumos Zfi 
ov yeyöVei to a-rjjxdov 'upon' (class, eis ov, Hdt. i. 114, or irepl or; 
cp. also eiri tivos infra 2) : 10. 35 7recrwv eVi Tors 7roSas 7rpocr€Kvvrj(rey, 
= Att. 7rpocnr eo~m> olvtm (Jo. 11. 32 has 7rpos with V.l. eis, Mc. 5. 22 
7t/dos). In temporal senses : A. 3. 1 eVi ri)v copav ttjs Trpoo-evxys, 
4. 5 (L. 10. 35) e7ri tv)v ai'pLov, more frequently expressed by rf/ 
eV-aupiov, denoting the coincidence of an action with a particular 
time, for which classical Greek uses eis (Zo-avpiov); it further denotes 
duration of time as in classical Greek: ec/>' fjfiepas 7rAeiot's A. 13. 31 

2. 'Eiri with genitive in the majority of cases means ' upon ' 
(answering the question Where ?), as in eVi ti}s y?/s, «Vi kXlvtjs, 
Ka#r;/xevos eVi tov app.a.Tos, eVi toi> 'lttttov etc., but also in answer to 
the question Whither ?, the reverse interchange of meanings taking 
place with kiri with the accus, as was noticed above in 1 : Mc. 4. 26 

1 'ErrlaTevcrav ewl rbv Kvpiov A. 9. 42, 11. 17 etc. might be compared with 
tirtaTpe^av itrl rbv k. 9. 35, 11. 21 etc. (direction whither), but we also have 
tow ■mcfTfvovTa.s «rt <r{ A. 22. 19 etc., where this explanation is unsuitable. 

§ 43- 2-3.] WITH THREE CASES. I37 

ßdXij tov cnropov iirl tt/s y?]s, 9. 20 ttcctwv i~l rvys y/ys (accus, in 
Mt. 10. 29, 34), Mt. 2G. 12 etc.; a further meaning is 'by, 5 irrl -rijs 
68ov Mt. 21. 19, i-l T/y« BaXdo-o-tp Jo. 21. 1 etc. (For the strengthened 
form eVavio 'upon' see § 40, 8.) With persons it means 'before,' 
Mc. 13. 9 e7rt f]y€fx6v(x>v (TTadijcrea-de, A. 25. 9 KpiveaOai irr' €/xoii 
(ibid. 10 eVi tou ßqixaros Kaio-apos eoTcüs 'before,' but in 17 Ka6io-as 
i-l r. ß. 'upon'), Mt. 28. 14 with a.Kovcrd>j (BD wro), 1 Tim. 5. 19 irrl 

[xaprvpwv («rt o-TO/u.aTos pap-r. 2 C. 13. 1, Hebr. "" " , 3~^^"), cp. infra 3, 
2 C. 7. 14 e-tTtTou (v.l. 77/305 TtVoi'). In metaphorical sense of 'over,' 
of authority and oversight (Attic), it is used not only with etvai, but 
also with Kadia-rdvat (supra 1), A. 8. 27, B. 9. 5, Mt. 2-1. 45 etc.; also 
with ßaa-iXevuv (cp. supra 1, § 36, 8) Mt. 2. 22 CD al. (nB have the 
simple genitive). 'To do to anyone,' 'to say of anyone': Jo. 6. 2 
a cVot'et i~ I twv do-Qevovi'Twv, G. 3. 16 ov Aeyet ... u>s eVi 7roXXwv k.t.X. 
(as in Plato Charm. 155 D, W.-Gr.); eV dXijßeias 'in accordance 
with the truth ' Mc. 12. 14 etc. (Demosth. 18. 17 etc.); frequently 
of contemporaneousness (classical) ort 'Aßidßap dp^iepews Mc. 2. 26, 
Mt. 1. 11, H. 7. 11 and elsewhere ; Paul uses eVi twi' -poaevx^v pov 
meaning 'in,'E. 1. 16 etc.; a Hebraistic use is eV ea-xdrov twv 7/pepojv 
H. 1. 1, cp. 1 P. 1. 20, 2 P. 3. 3, Jude 18, and cp. § 47, 2. 

3. 'Em with dative. — When the preposition has a local sense the 
genitive and accusative have the preponderance, and a sharp dis- 
tinction between its use with those cases and with the dative cannot 
be drawn. Answering the question Where 1 we have eiri dvpats, hri. 
Ty 8vpa (classical) 'before the door' Mt. 24. t,^, A. 5. 9 etc. (but in 
Ap. 3. 20 the accus.) : iirl 'upon' ('upon' in classical Greek 
is generally eiri tivos, Buttm. p. 289) Mt. 14. 8, 11, Mc. 6. 25, 28: 
tKadk^ero i-l rrj Trrjyrj Jo. 4. 6, cp. 5. 2, ' at ' or ' by ' : iirl rv.v~ri rrj 
-tTpa (accus, in D) otK-oSo/t/yo-w Mt. 16. 18 (but 7. 24 ff. accus.): with 
i—LßdXXeiv eTTiKeicrOat i—nriTTTeLv Mt. 9. 16, Jo. 11. 38 (without err' 
«*, cp. § 37, 7), A. 8. 16 (accus. D*, which is on the whole far the 
more frequent construction): €</>' iWois Ap. 19. 14 (elsewhere always 
expressed by genit.). The dative also intervenes in the metaphorical 
sense 'to set over' (as in classical authors) Mt. 24. 47. Most fre- 
quently art rwi denotes the ground or reason, especially with verbs 

expressing emotion, such as Oavpdfav, ^cupeii-, Xv—axrßai, peTavoeiv, 

see § 38, 2 (for the accus, supra 1); also with a'^apio-TciV, Sogdfav 
tov öeoV, Kpivto-dai (A. 26. 6) ; hr\ 'to call after' L. 1. 59 ; (rjv 
irrl Mt. 4. 4 O.T.; dpKÜo-Oai «rt 3 Jo. 10 ; i<f> <S 'for the reason that,' 
' because ' B. 5. 1 2, 2 C. 5. 4 ; under this head may be brought 
—e—oißivai, —icrTeveiv, i\m£eiv eVi tlvl, § 37, 1 (beside €7T6 Tiva, supra 1, 
and other constructions), Trupp-ijo-id^eo-dat eVi tw Kvptw A. 14. 3, unless 
the last instance is to be connected with the common i-l (like iv) tw 
ovofiaTi twos, § 39, 4. — Expressing addition to (classical) : L. 3. 20, 
16. 26 i-l (iv nBL) ttolo-l tovtois, cp. E. 6. 16 (iv nBP), Col. 3. 14, 
H. 8. 1 (for which we have accus, in Ph. 2. 27 Xvnrqv irrl Xvtttjv). 
Expressing a condition (classical): «V IAttiöi B. 8. 20, 1 C. 9. 10, 
Tit. 1. 2 (a different use in A. 2. 26 O.T., 4. 8, 5. 2, where it rather 
indicates the reason); cp. H. 8. 6, 9. 10, 15, 17; also KuXdv eV 

I3 8 PREPOSITIONS [§43-3-6. 

kXevdepia. G. 5. 13, OVK iir' aKaOaparia uAA' €v dyiacrpto 1 Th. 4. 7 : 
denoting rather aim, iir' epyots dyadols E. 2. 10, cp. e</>' w kcu 
KaT€X.ijfX(p6t]v Ph. 3. 12 (4. 10 is similar, but the expression is hardly 
formed correctly ; cp. infra) ; of result 2 Tim. 2. 14 (beside an l-L 
with accus., where however there is a var. lect.). 'At' or 'to any- 
thing'; 1 C. 14. 16, E. 4. 26, Ph. 1. 3, 2. 17, 1 Th. 3. 7, H. 11. 4, 
Jo. 4. 27 iirl TovTio (better Iv W*D) ; H. 9. 26 eirt <tvvt(\€l<j. tou 
aicuvos; «</>' w €^>poveiT€ 'whereon ye thought' Ph. 4. 10; Avith 
persons 'against' (cp. accus, supra 1) L. 12. 52 (beside an accusative), 
Ap. 10. 11, 'concerning' (cp. accus, supra 1) yeypafj.ij.eva Jo. 12. 16 
(D irepl avTOv), 'in the case of A. 5. 35 ; lirl 6W1 p,dpTV(ri.v dirodvijcrKti 

H. 10. 28 = Hebr. *3"v>', cp. supra 2 'if two witnesses are there,' 
denoting condition or reason. 

4. ITapd with accusative, mostly in local sense ' by,' ' beside,' is 
used indiscriminately to answer the questions Where? (strictly irapd 
Ttvi) and Whither? (a distinction which is already becoming lost in 
the classical language, through the encroachment of irapd with the 
accus.; in the N.T. the local irapd nvi has almost disappeared, vide 
infra 6). It is not, as it frequently is in classical Greek, joined with 
personal names (though irapd tovs iroSas twos is common) ; irpös tlvu 
takes its place, infra 7. — In metaphorical sense (classical) ' contrary 
to,' as opposed to Kara 'according to,' P. 1. 26, 11. 24 Trapd <pvo-tv 
opposed to Kara (f>.; Kara fivvaptv ...irapd Svv. ('beyond') 2 C. 8. 3 
(v.l. virep) ; ' other than ' G. 1. 8 f., also with äAAos 1 C. 3. 1 1 (class.); 
often 'more than,' both with a comparative, § 36, 12, and also with- 
out one : ekdrptvcrav t>; KTicrei Trapa tuv KTtcravTa R. 1. 25, 12. 3, 14. 5, 
L. 13. 2, 4, Herrn. Mand. x. 1. 2 (in classical Greek only 'in com- 
parison with,' but this easily leads to the other usage). It denotes 
also (as in class. Greek) that in consequence of which something is 
or is not: 2 C. 11. 24 Tea-a-apaKovra irapd p.iav, i.e. minus one, 7rapd 
rt ' almost ' L. 5. 7 D, Herrn. Sim. ix. 19. 3, ov irapd tovto ovk Zo-tcv «k 
tou o-w/witos 1 C. 12. 15 f. 'that is no reason for its not being' etc. — 
In Mt. and Mc. it is only found in local sense, in the Johannine 
writings (including the Apocalypse) and in the Catholic Epistles 
the use with accusative is entirely absent. 

5. ITapd with genitive ' from the side of,' only with persons (so 
classical Greek), with verbs of coming, hearing, receiving etc. (d™ 
sometimes incorrectly takes its place, § 40, 3) ; it is also rightly used 
in rots AeAaAi/^ei'ois irapd Kvptov L. 1. 45 (since God did not speak 
Himself, but the angel who was commissioned by Him, W.-Gr.); but 
in A. 22. 30 irapd is found with KajriyopdcrOat, but only in HLP, the 
other MSS. reading wo. It occurs without a verb in Mc. 3. 21 ol Trap 
avTov 'His kinsfolk' (lxx. Dan. Sus. 33), but there are several 
variants (the phrase in classical Greek could only mean the persons 
sent out by someone) : Sa7rai'iycrao-a to irap' (irap' om. D) kavTijs 5. 26 
is good classical Greek; Lc. 10. 7, Ph. 4. 18 etc. 

6. ITapd with dative is 'by,' 'beside,' answering the question 
Where 1 and with the exception of Jo. 19. 25 irapd to o-ravpiZ is only 
used of persons (so preponderantly in classical Greek), and more- 

§ 43- 6-7.] WITH THREE CASES. I 39 

over not of immediate neighbourhood * (thus not Kudijo-dai irapd, but 
fj-era. Ap. 3. 2i, a-vv A. 8. 31, or irpos Mt. 26. 55 CD), but 'in the 
house of anyone ' as in Jo. 1. 40: or 'amongst a people' as in Ap. 2. 13. 
The word is further used in a figurative sense : L. 1. 30 evpes x°-P iV 
irapd tw Ocm, Mt. 19. 26 SvvaTov, dSvvarov irapd tlvi, especially with 
the meaning 'in the opinion of anyone' (classical) R. 12. 16 (11. 25, 
where AB have iv) (f>povLpot Trap' eavrois, 1 C. 3. 19 p,a)pia irapd tw öeto; 
also A. 26. 8 dino-rov Kpiverai Trap' vp.iv (Mt. 21. 25 <5ieA.oyi£oi'To Trap' 
eairnns, but iv BL al., as in 16. 8 etc.). — The dative is the rarest of 
the cases after irapd (on account of its clashing with irpos, vide 7), 
still nearly all writers use it. 2 

7. npds with accusative is abundantly used with verbs of coming, 
sending, bringing, saying etc. = ' to ' (a person) ; often also with the 
verb 'to be'= 'with' or 'at,' taking the place of trapd tlvi, Mt. 13. 56 
irpbs r/p-ds etcriv, 26. 18 irpbs ere iroiio to irdir^a, 26. 55 as a V.l., Mc. 6. 3 
etc. (Herrn. Mand. xi. 9 etc.); also for irapd nra (cp. supra 4), lOa^av 
irpbs rbv dvSpa avTijs A. 5. 10, elcrrjXdes 7rpos dvSpas 11. 3, i.e. 'into 
their house,' and therefore expressed in Attic by -n-apd. 3 Also of 
places and things: Mt. 21. 1 irpbs (v.l. eis) to öpos, Mc. 11. 1, L. 19. 29: 
irpbs Trjv 6vpav Mc. 1. 33, 2. 2, 11. 4 (L. 16. 20), answering the 
questions Whither 1 and Where ? (in the latter case we have 
correctly irpbs tj) Ovpa Jo. 18. 16, irpb tu>v tivpwv A. 5. 23, art Ovpats 
Mt. 24. 33) : Mc! 3. 7 irpbs n)v OdXao-a-av (v.l. ds, cp. § 39, 5), 4 L. 12. 3 
irpbs rb o?5 XaXelv. As in classical Greek we also have 6epp.aiveo-6aL 
irpbs to <pi2s ('turning towards') Mc. 14. 54 (L. 22. 56). — In temporal 
sense it is used of approximation (class.) : irpbs kcrirkpav io-rlv L. 24. 29 
(irp. e. KehcXbKev 1) ->)p.€pa D) ; and with the meaning ' for a certain 
time ' (and no longer) irpbs Kaipov, äpav, dAiyas ->)p:epas, to irapovf 
L. 8. 13, Jo. 5. 35, H. 12. 10 f. etc. — -To express hostile and friendly 

relations, with p\d)(eo~6ai, eip-i'jvrjv e'x et,/ > dcrvp,<pwvos (A. 28. 25), i"]irios 

etc.; relevance to, ri irpbs rjp.ds ; 'what is it to us?' (so classical 
Greek, § 30, 3) Mt.' 27. 4, Jo. 21. 22; Mc. 12. 12 irpbs avrohs n)v 
irapaßoXrjV e?irev = of them, cp. 10. 5, Mt. 19. 8, L. 12. 41, 18. 1, 
20. 19 etc.; with dya86s, uxpiXipLos, Swards and other adjectives ('to,' 
'for') E. 4. 29, 1 Tim. 4. 8, 2 C. 10. 4, in which cases it may also 
denote destination, aim, or result, as in L. 14. 32, 19. 42 to, irpbs 
elp-qVTjV, Jo. 4. 35 Xcvkou irpbs 0epiap.6v, 11. 4 irpbs Odvarov 
(1 Jo. 5. 16 f.), A. 3. 10 6 7rpbs t?)v iXei]pocrvvr]v Ka6i)p.tvos, Jo. 13. 28 
7rpos Tt uirev 'for what intent.' 'In accordance with ' (class.) irpbs to 
<€pov 1 C. 12. 7, irpbs d Zirpa£ev 2 C. 5. 10, L. 12. 47, Herrn. 
Mand. xi. 3. 'In comparison with' (class.) a£ia irpbs R. 8. 18. 

1 L. 9. 47 has iuTrjffev avrb 7rap' iavrqi, but D eavTOf. 
• All except the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews. 

3 Confusion with irapd tlvi also takes place in Mc. 9. 31 €Kpa.Tt]aav irpbs iavTovs, 
11. 31 (L. 20. 5) 8i€\oyi$oPTo irpbs eavrovs, cp. Mt. 21. 25 irap eavrois, supra 6. 

4 L. 24. 50 i^yayev avrovs eus (om. D) irpbs {üs AX al. ) Brjdaviav, 'as far as to 
B. , ' ' within view of B. , ' for that they entered into the place is not to be 
thought of ; els is wrong. 

6 Classical (Thuc. ii. 22. 1, iii. 40. 7; Plato, Leg. v. 736 A). 

i 4 SYNTAX OF [§ 43. 8. § 44. 1. 

8. IIpos with genitive only occurs in A. 27. 34 (literary language) 
TouTo 7r/jos ttjs vperepas (rwTtjplas wa/D^et ('on the side of,' 'advan- 
tageous to,' 'for,' as in Thuc. iii. 59. 1 ov irpos rys vperepas oo£r;s Ta8e). 
— npos with dative, in local sense 'by,' 'at' (classical) is very rare, 
since the accusative takes its place (cp. supra 7) : Mc. 5. 1 1 7iy>os t<J> 
opei, L. 19. 37 (D accusative), Jo. 18. 16, 20. 11 (with v.l. accus.), 
12, Ap. 1. 13. 


1. The adjective may take over the functions of a substantive not 
only in the masculine and neuter, to denote persons and things 
(where these ordinary ideas readily suggest themselves), but also in 
the feminine : in this case there is a more or less obvious ellipse of 
some well-known substantive, which is sufficiently indicated by the 
feminine gender, the sense, and the context. The rule which applies 
to adjectives holds good also for pronouns and participles, as also for 
adverbial (or prepositional) expressions with the article. In the 
following phrases -y^ must be understood: y £ypd (Xenoph., lxx.) 
Mt. 23. 15 (t?)i> OdXacrcrav Kal t. £.), H. 11. 29 (t*AD*E with 7</s), rj 
7re/)t)(wpos (Plut.) Mt. 3. 5 etc., y opeivy L. 1. 30 (or SC. Y/ijpa), y epi^pos; 
in Ik t/}s i'7rb tuv ovpavov eis ryv vtt' ovp. L. 17. 24 it is better to supply 
pepiSos • in e£ evavTtas avrov Mc. 15. 39 (D £k€i), Tit. 2. 8 (class.) the 
ellipse is quite obscure. — Ellipse of ripipa: tq eVioiV?/ A. 16. 11, 
20. 15, 21. 18 (with yp. 7. 26), ry l\opevy, ry erepa. 20. 16, L. 13. 33 
( T V € X- VP' -A- 31- 26), elsewhere in Acts (and Luke's Gospel) ry egys; 
Trj {k-!r)avpiov occurs also in Mt. 27. 62 (Mc, Jo., Ja.); cn/pepov Kal 
uvpiov Kal ry rpiTif L. 13. 32 (elsewhere ry rp. yp.) ; els tijv avpiov... 
iTpo pius Herrn. Sim. vi. 5. 3 (Clem. Horn. ix. 1); 1) eßSopy 'the 
Sabbath ' H. 4. 4, ry pia rwv craßßdTcov A. 20. 7 etc., pe\pi TT/s 
<T,)pcpov Mt. 11. 23 etc. (elsewhere with yp.) ; also with d<p' *)s 
2 P. 3. 4 ('since') yp. may be supplied, cp. A. 24. 11 (Col. 1. 6, 9), 
but in L. 7. 45 there can only be an ellipse of w/oa?, 1 as there is in 
e^avrys ' immediately ' (§4. 1) ; there is the same ellipse in (y) irpoita, 
Ctxpia Mt., Mc, Jo., Herrn, (not classical), (y) Terpdpyvos Jo. 4. 35, 
rpip. H. 11. 23, cp. y rplpyvos Hdt. ii. 124. '086s is elided in L. 19. 4 
fKelvyi, 5. 19 7rotas (a stereotyped phrase; § 36, 13), els evßeias L. 3. 5 
O.T. (but 68ovs occurs soon after). Further instances are: kv ry 

t/WyviKT) (eAA^vi'Si N) SC. "yXwo-o-r) Ap. 9. 1 1, Tjj irveova-ij S& avpa A. 27. 40 
(dpyvpiov pvpidbas ir'evre SC. Spa\\i.ü>v A. 19. 19), «ri ry TrpoßartKy SC. 
-itvXt] Jo. 5. 2, y 8e£id, dpurTepd SC. x^P -^^. 6. 3 etc., ev 8e^La R. 8. 34 
etc. 'on the right hand,' unless this should be read ev8e£ia (classical ; 
N.T. elsewhere has Ik Se^iwv, eh to Segia. p'epy Jo. 21. 6, Hermas has 
also Se£ia, emovvpa for 'to right' or 'left' Sim. ix. 12. 8), Sapycrerat 
7roAAu's ... oAiyas sc irXTryds L. 12. 47 (§ 34, 3 ; class.), cp. 2 C. 11. 24. 
The following have become stereotyped: d-n-u pids L. 14. 28 'with 

1 It was a stereotyped formula, cp. Herrn. Sim. viii. 1. 4 ä<f>' ^s wdvTa t'üjjs ' as 
soon as,' 'after that ; 0.6. 

§ 44- 1-3-] THE ADJECTIVE. I 4 I 

one mind or voice' (coro /«as vcnrXayi8os Aristoph. Lysistr. 1000) ;* 
Kara /x6va<i 'alone' (Thuc. i. 32. 5 etc.) Mc. 4. 10, L. 9. 18 (lxx. ; 
Herrn. Mand. xi. 8); frequently /car' IBiav, I8ia. 1 C. 12. 11, 8-qp.oo-ia 
'openly' in publico (with a different meaning in Attic) A. 16. 37 etc. 
— Similar instances of ellipse are found also with the other genders : 

TW TTvkoVTL SC. dvejlO) A. 27. 15 ß text, TTpo'i/JLOl' KO.I OX^ljXOV SC. t'CTOV 

Ja. 5. 7 with the reading of (n)B, tu rpirov, rkraprov, Sckoltov sc. 
jiepos ApOC. (not classical), To c>io7r€Tes SC. A-yaXfia A. 19. 35, 7TOTT//HOV 

v|ruxpov sc. iiSaros Mt. 10. 42, cp. Ja. 3. 1 1 (Winer, § 64, 5), ev Xcvkois 
sc. i|iariois Jo. 20. 12 (Herrn. Vis. iv. 2. 1), cp. Mt. 11.8, Ap. 18. 12, 16. 
— The opposite procedure to an ellipse takes place when Luke 
(according to classical precedent) inserts an ävf]p with a substantive 
denoting a person: d. Trpo^rjT-qs L. 24. 19, </>ovei>s A. 3. 14, dv8pl 
'lovSau» 10. 28, and in addresses avSpes TaXiXaioi, 'A8i]valoi, d8eX<poC 
etc., A. 1. 16 and elsewhere. 

2. The use of an adjectival instead of an adverbial expression in 
the case of certain ideas that are annexed to the predicate is found 
in the N.T. as in the classical language, but rarely : the instances 
are mainly in Luke's writings. AevrepaloL -ijXOo/jLev 'on the second 
day' A. 28. 13, cp. Trep.irTdi.oi 20. 6 D for o-XP L ^f^owv nkvre of the 
other MSS. Tevopevai opOptval kirl to p,v)]p.tiov L. 24. 2 2 (6p6pivl<s 

eX-ijXvdas Herrn. Sim. v. 1. 1). Ai'to/xcit?? i)voiyy) A. 12. 19, Mc. 4. 28. 
'Ettlctt-ij al<f>vi8io<s L. 21. 34 j also ckcuv, a/ccov, 7rptuTos 'first of all' 
(R. 10. 19) ; dvdo-TY]dc opdos A. 14. IO, touto dXi/des etp?;Kas (nE 
d/\?7#ws 2 ) Jo. 4. 18 (like Demosth. 7. 43 tovto y' äAryÖv} [other MS. 
dXrjdes] Xeyovo-i). There is a certain amount of mixture of pdvos and 
the adverb pdvov, just as in the classical language the one use borders 
closely on the other : Mc. 6. 8 p.r]8kv ei /x?) puß8ov p.6vov (p.6vrjv D), 

A. 11. 19 p.rj8evl et /xt) p.övov (/lovots D) 'Ioi'Satots, 1 Jo. 5. 6 ovk iv tw 

vSoltl p.6vov (B p-ovw). If the word ' alone ' refers without any doubt 
to a verb (or else to a predicative idea like aKpoarai Ja. 1. 22, dpyat 
1 Tim. 5. 13), then /xöVov is the only possible expression; but it is 
also not contrary to Greek idiom to say (H 12. 26) o-eto-cu oi' p.6vov 
rrjv yrjv, dXXa kol rbv ovpavov 'I am not contented with earth- 
shaking only,' 2 Tim. 4. 8 ov p:6vov 8k kpoi, dXXd kou irdo-iv (to limit 
the gift to one would be too little). For the reverse use of adverb 
for adj. see § 76, 1. 

3. On the coincidence in meaning of the comparative and super- 
lative and the reason for it, we have already spoken in § 11, 3 ; the 
two degrees are in no way differentiated, as they are in modern 
Greek or in French, by the addition of the article for the superlative, 
but are indistinguishable : 3 see 1 C. 13. 13 71- terns e'A7rts dydV?/, to. rpia 
ravra- p.ei(wv 8k tovtcov -q dydrrrj. The form which has remained in 
ordinary use is in nearly all cases that of the comparative ; Trpwros. 

1 Strictly of runners in a race, who rush off together at the fall of the single 
rope (v<nr\T)y%, vavXayis). 

2 Less classical is Xe7&> vfuv dXrjOQs L. 9. 27, 12. 44, 21. T, = äfiy)v (which D 
reads in 12. 44 and Cyprian in 21. 3. 

3 Barnabas agrees with the N.T. use, e.g. 12. 2 üt^Xörepo? tt6.vtuv. 

I 4 2 SYNTAX OF [§ 44. 3. 

and eo-^aTos are the only exceptions to this (§11, 5). Now whereas 
the superlative in classical Greek is used not only where there is a 
definite comparison made of several things, but often in what may be 
called an absolute sense, equivalent to our ' very,' while the classical 
comparative occasionally corresponds to an English positive (Odrrov 
= ' quickly '), so the New Testament comparative may have an 
ambiguous meaning : Jo. 13. 27 6 ttouis iroi-qo-ov rä-^iov (Luther 
' bald ' [A.V. ' quickly '] ; but it may also mean ' as quickly as 
possible'; cp. 1 Tim. 3. 14, where there is a v.l. Iv rd\u ; in 
H. 13. 19 probably 'more quickly,' 23 lav rdxiov cpxrjrai 'if he 
comes soon'; in A. 17. 15 we have ws Ta^to-ra from the literary 
language, but D reads eu tuy^O- 1 Also acro-ov, paXXov, dpetvov etc., 
similarly vewrepos or -pov (Kaivorepov) can in the classical language be 
rendered in many cases by the positive (although we also use similar 
phrases such as 'come nearer,' 'it is better to ...'); in the N.T. cp. 
(besides Trp&rßvTtpos used as the designation of a Jewish or Christian 
official) A. 17. 21 Xeyetv ti i) o.kov£lv Kuivorepov (Kühner Ü. 2 848),' 2 
whereas do-aov TraptXeyovTo tijv Kp/jTiyv 27. 1 3 (if Odcrtrov be not the 
right reading) must mean ' as near as possible ' ; so in any case 

2-4. 22 UKpißk(TT€pOV €t'SwS = aKpißeCTTCLTOL, 25. IO KaXXlOV lTriytVi<)(TK€.L<; 

= a/3io-ra, and 2 Tim. 1. 18 should be similarly explained ßkXriov o~v 
ytvcuo-Kets (not ' thou knowest better than 1/ which can certainly not 
be right). 3 In A. 17. 22 ws 8a.o-iSaipovecrTepovs vpas dewpu), it is 
doubtful whether the comp, has its classical sense of 'unusually 
(too) god-fearing' or means 'very god-fearing'; but o-irovSaiorepos 
2 C. 8. 17 can only mean 'very zealous'; and frequently there is a 
corresponding use of the English comparative, the standard of com- 
parison being readily supplied, 2 C. 7. 7 wcrre pe p.dXXov x a P''] l ' aL 
'still more.' In Hermas, on the other hand, the elative sense is 
regularly expressed by the superlative, uyaOwraros, o-epvoraros etc., 
while in other cases he also uses comparative and superlative inter- 
changeably (Mand. viii. 4. iravnov needs correction); 
Sim. ix. 10. 7 is noticeable, fjo-av Se IXapwrepai, which appears to be 
used in elative sense, and therefore to need correction, but the Latin 
has hilares satis. — Ol 7rA.etoves may mean ' the greater number,' as in 
1 C. 15. 6 c'£ &v ol 7rXdovs pkvovcriv, 10. 5, but also 'others,' 'more,' 
9. 19 iva. roes 7rAe<Was KepSij(T<D 1 (r. ttX. ul'twv Origen), 2 C. 2. 6, 
4. 15, 9. 2, Ph. I.14 as opposed to the person or persons who have 

1 Cp. Clem. Horn. i. 14 to.xi.6v ae KaTa\r)\po/xai, 'as quickly as possible,' xi. 13 
To.xt.ov iirtXavddveade ('forthwith'); in a quite different sense ix. 23 w$ Tax L0V 
dTrov = <pdäo-as, modo, 'just before.' For the superlative or elative sense cp. 
also Papyr. Berl. Aeg. Urk. 417, 451, 615. Cp. irvKvoTepov A. 24. 26 where it 
is ambiguous (' very often ' or ' so much the oftener ') ; Clem. Cor. ii. 17. 3 prob- 
ably 'as often as possible,' Clem. Horn. Ep. ad Jac. 9 wvKvÖTtpov ... ws dvvaade 
(in the weaker sense ibid. iv. 2, viii. 7), similarly awexio-repov iii. 69. 

2 Hermas, Vis. iii. 10. 3 \iav wpeo-ßvTtpa, 5 6'\?7 veuiTipa 'very old,' 'quite 
youthful,' Sim. ix. 11. 5. 

3 The passage adduced by Winer, Luscian Piscat. 20 dpetvov <rv olcrda raOra, Si 
<i>iXo(7o0ia, is different, so far as the meaning of the comp, is concerned : the 
goddess did actually know better than Lucian. 

§ 44- 3-5.] THE ADJECTIVE. 143 

hitherto been considered ; cp. toGto. elirutv Kai to. tovtwv 7rA€iora 
Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Jac. 17 (so A. 2. 40 e-rcpois re A6yois TrAetWiv?). 1 
— On the remnants of the superlative see § 11, 3 (especially for 
jjlu/Xlo-to. and /xaAAov) ; on the forms of expression to introduce the 
object compared (gen., 1), -n-apd or virkp) § 36, 12. 

4. The positive may also be used with the meaning of a compara- 
tive (or superlative) : this occasionally takes place in the classical 
language, but it is mainly due to the example of the Semitic lan- 
guage, which has no degrees of comparison at all. Ol ttoXXol are 
the many as opposed to the few, i.e. the majority, in classical 
Greek and Mt. 24. 12, frequently in Mc. (Gregory-Tisch. 128) 6. 2 
BL (v.l. without 01), 9. 26 «ABLA (same v.l.), cp. 12. 37 infra; in 
St. Paul -rail' 77-oAAwv 1 C. 10. 33 is opposed to ipavrov, and is 
therefore parallel to the same writer's use of 01 7rAetoves elsewhere ; 
-Aeio-Tos is also found in this sense : Mt. 21. 8 6 7rAeto-Tos 6'xAos 2 = 6 
ttoAvs o. of Mc. 12. 37 (at 7rA€tcrTat öWa/zeis avrov Mt. 11. 20 'his 
numerous miracles,' cp. to 77-oAAa ypdp.para A. 26. 24). A further 
example is (Buttm. p. 73) Mt. 22. 36 7roia evToA?) peydXr) ev t£ i'6uu 
'the greatest,' cp. 5. 19. With the idea of comparison more clearly 
marked (by the addition of a gen.), we have to ayia t£>v dyiW 
H. 9. 2 f. (lxx.), a use which is by no means unclassical (Ka/«x 
xaKwv, Kühner ii. 2 20). In the case where the comparison is 
introduced by v-n-ep or 7rapa (§ 36, 1 2), on the analogy of the 
Semitic construction, the adjective may be either positive or com- 
parative : L. 13. 2 äp.apT(i)Xol Trapa 7ravras (where a comparative was 
wanting, cp. SeotKatwueros 7rapa 18. 14 nBL ; frequent in LXX., e.g. 
aeyas Trapa, -rrpavs -rrapa. Ex. 18. 11, Num, 12. 3). The positive may 
however also be used with ?) : Mt. 18. 8 f , Mc. 9. 43, 45 KaAov «mi/ 
...■>) (LXX. Gen. 49. 12 XcvkoI ?}); similarly where there is no 
adjective (and päXXov is therefore to be supplied) L. 15. 7 x a P" 
«rrai ... 7}, 1 C. 14. 19 6eX(o ... rj, Lc. 17. 2 XvcrireXd ... fj } for which 
there are classical parallels. 3 

5. The comparative is heightened, as in classical Greek, by the 
addition of ttoXv or ttoXXw: 2 C. 8. 22, Jo. 4. 41 ; occasionally too 
by the accumulation of several comparatives : Ph. 1. 23 77-0 AAw yap 
/xaAAov Kpeicrvov (Clem. Cor. i. 48. 6 ocrw 8ok€l paAAov pecfav etVat is 
merely pleonastic, like Herrn. Sim. ix. 28. 4 pdXXov ivSogorepoi), 2 C. 
7. 13 TrepicnroTepcos fiaXXov i)(dpi][iev, Mc. 7. 36 paXXov 7reptcro"OT€pov 
(-orepws D) ZkhJpvo-ctov, cp. § 1 1 , 3, note 4. The same accumulation appears 
in classical Greek, Schwab Syntax der Comparation iii. 59 ff. But in 
■ijSicrTa pdXXov 2 C. 12. 9 the words should not be taken together : 
the sense being 'Gladly (superl. with elative force, and a stereo- 
typed phrase) will I rather glory in my weaknesses.' 

1 Classical Greek had the same use : top irXeiova XP 0V0V ' a longer time ' (than 
at present), TrXeioves \6yoi, rbv Tr\eiu \6yov (Soph. Tr. 731) 'further speech.' 
Cp. Kühn. ii. 549 ; E. Tournier, Rev. de philol. 1877, 253 ; O. Schwab, Syntax 
der Comparation ii. 178. 

2 Plato, Leg. 700C. 

3 Kühner ii. 2 841 (so Herodotus ix. 26 fin. 5iKcu6v iartv ...rj). 

144 NUMERALS. [§ 45. 1-2 

§ 45. NUMERALS. 

1. The first clay of the month or of the week is expressed in the 
lxx. and in the N.T. not by Trpcorij but by /xia, whereas for the 
higher numbers the ordinal is used, Sevrepa and so on : of course 
the day being a single day (in the case of Sevrepa 'the second' etc.) 
does not admit of being expressed by a plural, while all other 
numbers but efs must necessarily be plurals. Thus eis p-tav (raßßäriov 
' on Sunday ' Mt. 28. 1, ev /tup tov p.rjvus tou Sevrepov Num. 1. 1. This 
is not a classical, 1 but undoubtedly a Hebrew idiom (Gescnius- 
Kautzsch, § 134, 4), with this difference that in Hebrew the later 
days of the month are also denoted by cardinal numbers. This 
N.T. usage (found also in A. 20. 7, 1 C. 16. 2, Mc. 16. 2) is violated 
in 'Mc' 16. 9 TrpioTi) craßßaTov, for which Eusebius however quotes 

t{) fxia. 

2. Efs already begins now and again to pass from the sense of a 
numeral (one as opposed to several) into that of the indefinite 
article ; the latter development, which has analogies in the German 
and Romance languages, appears completely carried out in modern 
Greek. The Hebrew "IHN, moreover, afforded a precedent to the 
N.T. writers. In Mt. 8. 19 irpoo-eXOuiv eh ■ypap.p.a.Tevs, 26. 69 fda 
7raiStovo7, Ap. 8. 13 yKovcra evos derov etc., et? = the classical tis ; and 
similarly we find eh with the gen. (or e£) : L. 15. 15 evl twv ttoXitiov, 
Ap. 7. 13 eh €« (c'k om. «) twv TrpecrßvTep<Dv ; '-' it is used in con- 
junction with ns (classical) eh tis e£ avrwv L. 22. 50, still in such 
a way that eh forms a contrast to the remaining body (Jo. 11. 49, 
a v.l. in Mc. 14. 47, 51). Another unclassical use is that of 6 eh ... 

eVepos for 6 pev (eVepos) ... o 8e (eVepos), Mt. 6. 24, L. 7. 41 ruv era 
-tov 8e era Barn. 7. 6, 17), eh ... Kai efs ... , Mt. 27. 38, L. 18. 10 I) 
(Herrn. Mand. vi. 2. 1 ; on the model of Heb. ^^Sl, e.g. in Ex. 17. 12), 
Mc. 4. 8, 20, cp. Mt. 13. 8, 23 (§ 46, 2) etc., though even classical 
writers repeatedly employ eh when dividing a multitude (or a 
duality) into its component parts, Hyperid. cont. Athenogenes § 14 f. 
6 eh i'o/Aos ... erepos v. k.t.A., Xenoph. Cyrop. i. 2. 4 Terrapa ... ev p.ev 
... ev 8e ... <xAAo ... dX\o ; Demosth. xviii. 215 rpta ... ev p.ev ... erepov 
Se ... Tp'tTov 8e, Arist. Iihet. ii. 20 f., 1393 A, 27 et'S?; 8vo, ev p.ev - ev 8e, 
(where the full meaning of the numeral is preserved), cp. Ap. 17. 10 
e7TTa ... oi 7revTe ... o e?s ... o aAAos. See § 46, 2. Lastly, a quite un- 
classical but Semitic usage is that of efs rhv eVa for aAAv/Aovs 

1 Th. 5. 11 (I C. 4. 6 efs virep tov evos Kara, tov erepov is different: 

1 Ets Kai eiV-0(7r6s, Tpianoaros (the regular form even in Attic inscriptions) is 
essentially different, since this is only a case of the formation of the ordinal 
being imperfectly carried out, as in the Latin unus et vicesimus. 

2 This use of eh is found already in Attic writers, ein tu>i> ttoXitCöv Hyperid. 
Lycophr. 13, tQiv eraipuiv eis Aesch. c. Ctesiph. 89, although there is always 
the implied meaning 'belonging to this definite number (or class),' so that the 
e£s has a force which is quite absent from it in Luke loc. cit. The instances 
adduced for the weakened sense of eis from Plato and Xenophon {fi.g. Plat. 
Leg. ix. 855 D) are quite irrelevant, since the eh is there a true numeral. 

§45- 2-4. §46. 1-2.] NUMERALS. THE ARTICLE. I4 j 

the sense being, every individual on behalf of the one against the 
other, fully expressed eis virep tov e. k. t. kr. ko.1 «tc/dos vtt. t. «vos 
[the opposite person to the previous evos] k. t. It.). 

3. 'Avd and Kara with a numeral have a distributive sense as in 
classical Greek: Mc. 6. 40 Kara (v.l. dvd as in L. 9. 14) exarov ko.1 
Kara irevr-qKovra (Herrn. Sim. ix. 2. 3 dvd 8110 Trupßevoi, cp. § 39, 2) ; 
besides this we have after the Semitic manner 1 8vo 8vo Mc. 6. 7 
(dvd 8vo D as in L. 10. 1), just as for Kcn-d (rvpirocna, k. TTpacrids 
Mc. 6. 39 f. has arvp.Tr6(ria a-vpirocria, Trpaurial irpaa-iai (Herm. Sim. 
Vlli. 2. 8 ray para ray para, 4. 2). 2 On dvd eis eKacrros, efs ko.6' e?s 
and the like, see § 51, 4. 

4. 2 P. 2. 5 «5-ySoov N<£e e<pvXa^ei' f 'Noah with seven others,' is 
correct classical Greek (though 6y8. avrbv would be more usual). — 
Mt. 18. 22 ews eßSop.r)KovTa.Kis kirra is peculiar for 'seventy times 
seven times': D* alone reads eß8. eWä/as. — 'Now for the third 
time ' is rptrov tovto (§ 34, 3), like Herod, v. 76 rerapTov tovto (W.); 
'for the third time' is (to) -rp'nov Mc. 14. 41 etc., e/c rpkov Mt. 
26. 44, cp. A. 10. 15. 

§ 46. THE ARTICLE. I. 'O, tj, to, as pronoun ; the article with 
independent substantives. 

1. The article d, -q, to, which had long since been developed out 
of the old demonstrative pronoun, retains on the whole in the N.T. 
all its former usages, and amongst them to a certain extent its use 
as a pronoun (' this one,' ' he '). There is here, however, a confusion 
(found also in other Hellenistic writings, and indeed in the classical 
period, Kühner ii. 2 779 f.) between the forms of the apOpov npo- 
TaKTiKov 6, 17, to and those of the apdpov viroTaxTiKov 6s, •»/, 6, since 
the latter are employed as demonstratives instead of relatives. 

2. '0|i€v-6 8e, 'the one -the other.' This use is no longer very 
frequent in the N.T., and usually takes the form of 8s p*v - 8s 8e (neut. 
o piv ... 8e, plur. d/xev, o?s pikv } oi)s pkv etc.); moreover the (Semitic) 
use of cfs encroaches upon it, § 45, 2, though the latter is not every- 
where synonymous with it, and can form no plural. Thus 6 pkv - 6 
8k refers either to persons already familiar, the one - the other, this 
one — that one, or is quite indefinite, one - another ; on the other 
hand it does not serve as a means of differentiating a number of 
persons or things when they are introduced for the first time ; hence, 
whereas Luke can say (23. 33) rois KaKovpyovs, Sv /xev - ov 8e, the 
phrase in Mt. 27. 38 is 8vo Xya-rai, efs - ko.1 eh (class, efs pev - erepos 
Se), cp. § 45, 2. Other instances of os pXv -os 81: Mt. 13. 4 (d pXv - 
dAAa Se [D d 8Q ; similar freedom as to the sequence in the clauses 
is frequent elsewhere, cp. Kühner ii. 2 508 note), 13. 8, 16. 14, 21. 
35, 22. 5 (os nBC*L, oi D), 25. 15, 26. 67 (ol 8e alone, 'but others'), 

1 lxx. Gen. 7. 3, 9. From classical Greek Winer adduces Aesch. Pers. 981 
fivpia fivpia Trefnraffrdu, i.e. rbv Kara fi-vpiovs dpid/JLOvvra. 

2 A mixed construction dvä duo 5vo occurs in the Gospel of Peter 35. 


I 4 6 THE ARTICLE. [§46.2-4. 

28. 17 (ditto), 1 Mc. 4. 4, 12. 5, L. 8. 5, Jo. 7. 12, A. 14. 4, 17. 18 
(tiv«s...oi Se), 32, 27. 44, 28. 24, R. 9. 21, 14. 2 (os p.ev-6 [os FG] 
& äo-fovw./), 5, 1 C. 11. 21, 12. 8, 28, 2 C. 2. 16 ('the latter'- 'the 
former,') Ph. 1. 16 (ditto), 2 Tim. 2. 20, Jd. 22. On the other hand 
the only instances of 6 /zev — 6 8k are : 1 C. 7. 7 o /«v outws 6 6« 
ovtws (os n c KL), E. 4. 11 tous /lev — xoi>s 8e all mss.; also in H. 7. 20 f., 
23 f., 12. 10 we have ol [xkv-6 Se, referring to definite persons (in 
7. 20 f. the priests under the old system - Jesus), who are indicated 
in this way instead of by a repetition of the names, a case in which 
os is never used : Mt. 13. 23 also appears to be an instance, os 6V/ 
(D has Tore for ös 81]) Kap7rocpopet «at 7Toiei o jxkv eKarov, 6 8e e^i'/Kovra, 
6 Se TpioLKovra, but the verse = verse 8, where 6 is neuter, and it 
should therefore probably be so taken here as well, cp. Mc. 4. 20 
lv TpLanovTo. k.t.X. (where it is quite wrong to write ev). 

3. 'O 8* 'but he,' t| Si, ol 8* (only in the nominative) used in con- 
tinuing a narrative, are common in all historical writings (least often 
in St. John); 2 the use of 6 plv o€v 'he then,' without a oe strictly 
corresponding to the p.ev, is confined to the Acts. '0 8e, 6 ovv 
show a special tendency to take a participle after them, which gives 
rise occasionally to ambiguity. For instance, in A. 8. 4 01 p.ev oZv 
8iaa-TrapevT€s means ' they therefore that were scattered,' since in 
order to separate ol from Siao-7rapevTes it would be necessary for the 
subject referred to to have been mentioned just before, whereas 
here it is a long way off (verse 1) ; but in 1. 6 ot ovv aweXOovres 
it is ambiguous whether the meaning is ' they therefore who were 
come together ' or ' they therefore, when they were come together.' 
The demonstrative 6 (6's) no longer appears in connection with other 
particles : there is no trace of «at os, kgu töV in the continuation of 
a narrative, nor of tov kcu töV 'such and such a one,' or irpo tou 
( formerly ' etc. 

4. 'O, rj, to used as the article with appellatives has as in classical 
Greek a double import : it is either individual or generic, i.e. it 
either calls special attention to one definite individual out of a class, 
6 av0pa>7ros = ovTos o audpünros, or it contrasts the whole class as 
such with other classes, ot avdpwiroi opposed to ra aAXa (wa (or to 
6 0eos). The latter use is also derived from the demonstrative 
sense: 'these persons,' to wit 'men.' This sense of the article was 
known by grammarians in early times (Apollonius Dyscolus) as the 
1 anaphoric ' sense, because there is a reference back (ava^opa) to 
something already familiar or supposed to be familiar : 6 8ov\6s crov 
is ' your slave ' (the particular slave whom you know I mean, or the 
one whom you have), but SouAo's o-ov is ' a slave of yours.' If there- 
fore an individual who is not yet familiar is introduced for the first 

1 In these last two passages there is no partition indicated at the beginning 
of the sentence, but it is only through the ol 5e that it becomes apparent that 
the preceding statement was not applicable to the whole body. Cp. Winer, 
§ 17, 2, who compares passages from classical authors. 

2 Jo. 5. 11 6 3£ d-rreKpidr) wC*OKL al., aweicp. alone C 3 DEF al., a peculiar 
reading 8s ö£ dir. AB, as in Mc. 15. 23 5s Se KB. Cp. § 79, 4. 

§46.4-5.] THE ARTICLE. I47 

time, or if the whole class (though familiar) is not embraced, but 
only an undefined part of it, then no article need be used, as e.g. in 
the case of a predicate : for in v/zets fidprvpes toi'twv there is no 
dva(f>opd to particular well-known witnesses, nor is the whole class 
embraced : this is the ordinary rule for expressing a predicate 
(exceptions are given in § 47, 3). 

5. The use of the individual article, in cases where it is used at 
all, is generally speaking obligatory, at least according to classical 
usage it is so : the necessity for its use is not removed by the inser- 
tion of a demonstrative or a possessive : ovtos o dvOpunros, r) ep.i) 
otKia. The generic article may be far more readily dispensed with, 
especially in the case where the genus is represented by only a 
single specimen. With natural objects : we have 6 ->)'A<.os, r) o-eXnjvr), 
but also ->)Xlov 8e (tov 8e rj. D) äi'arei'AavTos Mt. 13. 6, L. 21. 5 ecrovrai 
a-q/xela iv f]Xiw kgu o-eXijvrj ko.1 acrrpois, followed by a contrasted state- 
ment kcu e7ri T»js yyjs 'here on earth': A. 27. 20 p-i)re 8e r)Xiov pi)re 
da-Tpwv €7ri</jcuvovTwi', 'neither sun nor stars shining,' 1 C. 15. 41 dXXr) 

86£a iiXlov, Kai äXXr) 86£a o-eXrjinis, Kal aXXt) 86£a dcrTepwv, Ap. 7. 2, 
16. 12 d-TTu dvaroAv^s y]Xiov, 22. 5 ovk k\ovo~iv ^pecav <£cotos Xv)(Vov /ecu 
<£wtos fjXiov (cp. 21. 23 with. art.). In a certain number of these 
examples the omission or insertion of the article was obviously a 
matter of choice ; but in A. 27. 20 the meaning appears to be 
intensified by the omission 'neither any sun,' and with 1 C. 15. 41 
verse 39 must be compared, dXXrj pkv (<rdp£) dvOpwiron', dXXr] Se kti]vwv 
etc., and the reason for the absence of the article might be in both 
passages that the reference is not so much to the species taken as a 
Avhole, or to the uniquely existing sun, as to the distinctive charac- 
teristic of the species or of the individual object in the respective 
passages. Cp. 2 C. 11. 26 kivBvvois Ik yevovs (my kindred, i.e. Jews), 
Kal e£ Wvm> (elsewhere usually ra Wv-q, vide infra), k. iv 0aXd<ro-r) ; 
the article would here be wrong. Further instances of the absence 
of the art. with ddXacrcra : Mt. 4. 15 O.T. 68uv OaXdcrcrrjs, A. 10. 6, 12 
-apd ddXaa-a-av (after a preposition or a substantive equivalent to a 
prep., § 40, 9), L. 21. 25 V/xoi'S daXda-ai^s, Ja. 1. 6 kXv8wvl ÖaAacrcr?;s, 
Jd. 13 Kvpara dypia BaX. (part of the predicate, and also clue 
to the distinctive character of the sea being the point of the 
comparison). With yrj ' earth ' the cases of omission of the art. 
are mainly after a preposition (though even here the cases of inser- 
tion far preponderate) : eVt yr^s Mt. 28. 18 (with rrjs BD), L. 2. 14, 
1 C. 8. 5, E. 3. 15, H. 12. 25, 8. 4 (in all these instances except the last 
in conjunction with kv ovpavoh (-w) or dir'' ovpavm' or eV vxfio-rois), 
€K yrjs 1 C. 15. 47 (opposed to e£ ovp.), cp. also dirb aKpov yrj<s ews 
aKpov ovpavov Mc. 13. 27. Besides these we have A. 17. 24 ovpavov 
Kal yrjs Kvpios, 2 P. (3. 5 ovpavol ... Kal ytj 'a new heaven,' similarly 
13), 3. 10 ovpavol (with ot ABC)...o-TOix_€ia ... yrj (with 1) CP), cp. 12. 
Among these instances, in 1 C. 15. 47 the omission was no doubt 
obligatory, since e* yrjs is ' earthy ' (the essential property of earth 
is referred to). Ovpavos (-oc) with a preposition frequently stands 
without an article (often there is a diversity of reading in the mss.); 
the omission is obligatory in Mt. 21. 25 f. e£ ovpavov ... e'£ dvOpwiruv 

148 THE ARTICLE. [§46.5-7. 

= 'of heavenly' or 'human origin'; so in Mc. 11. 30 f., L. 20. 4 f. 
Omission of art. where there is no prep, occurs in A. 3. 21, 17. 24 
(for 2 P. 3. 5, 12 vide supra). Kdo-jios : kv Koa-fno 1 C. 8. 4, 14. 10, 
Ph. 2. 15 etc. (v.l. in 2 P. 1. 4) ; of one world as opposed to another 
2 P. I.5 (see above on yv}) ; Kovpov forming part of the anarthrous 
predicate R. 4. 13, 11. 12, 20; the omission is regular in all writers 
in the formula d-n-b naTafSoX?)? (dpxys, kt«t€ws) k 007*01/ Mt. 25. 34 etc., 
cp. <x7r' dp\ijs kt(o-£ü)s Mc. 10. 6, 13. 19, 2 P. 3. 4 ; other instances 
2 C. 5. 19, G. 6. 14. — The points of the compass, only found in con- 
nection with prepositions, never have the article : Kara ixeo~i]pßpiav 
A. 8. 26, a7ro dvaroXQv Mt. 2. I, 8. II etc., a7rö Svapwv L. 12. 54, cnro 
ßoppa. Kai voTov 13. 29 (so in other writers) ; also ßaa-lXtcnra votov 
Mt. 12. 42 of more definite regions in the south, but kv Tjj dvaroXg 
is used in the same sense in Mt. 2. 2, 9. 

6. Another class of Being, unique of Its kind, is expressed by 
0«os, KvpLos ( = STliT, but also Christ), and these words come near 
being proper names; it is not surprising that the article is frequently 
dropped. This happens especially after a preposition (d~o deod 
Jo. 3. 2, kv Kvpuo passim), or when the word is in the genitive and 
dependent on an anarthrous noun (particularly a predicate), e.g. 
Mt. 27. 20 6'ti Beov ettu nios, L. 3. 2 kykvero pijpa deov (subject), 
although we also have et vlus el tov deov Mt. 4. 3, vie tov 6eov 8. 29, 
and the usage depends more on a natural tendency to assimilation 
and abbreviation than on any hard and fast rule. So also vie 
8iaßd\ov A. 13. 10 (Sia/?. elsewhere takes an art., as does o-aravas 
except in [Mc. 3. 23 ' one Satan '] L. 22. 3). On X^io-tos vide infra 10. 
— Under the head of the generic article must also be classed plurals 
like di'0p(o7roL, veKpoi, eOvq ; here too it is especially after a preposition 
and in a few phrases besides that we occasionally have noticeable 
instances of the omission of the art.: Ik v€Kpüv eyepOrj Mt. 17. 9, and 
so regularly (except in E. 5. 14 O.T., Col. 2. 12 BDEFG, 1 Th. 1. 10 
[om. T(»v ACK]), whereas we have ->)yep6i] dirb twv v. Mt. 14. 2 etc.; 
ävda-raariv veKpwv A. 17. 32, 23. 6 etc.; in 1 C. 15. 15 f., 29, 32 the 
article could not stand, because it is the idea and not the complete 
number which is in question (verse 52 is different) ; 1 P. 4. 5 Kptvai 
(ojvras Kal v£Kpous = all, Avhether dead or living, cp. 6. — Not infre- 
quently üevT], 'the heathen' is without an art.: after Hebr. Ü^U in 
A. 4. 25 O.T., R 15. 12 O.T.; !£ I0v5v A. 15. 14, G. 2. 15, \v iOveatv 
1 Tim. 3. 16, crvv ed. A. 4. 27 ; in the gen. 7tAoi»tos edvuiv, Wv. d-noo-- 
toAos R. 11. 12 f. (predic.) ; also P. 3. 29 f. 1} 'Iov&uW • (as such) 6 
öeos p.6vov; ovyl kol edvutv; vat Kal kQv&v, eiVep efs o öeos, 0$ StKatwtret 
7re/jfro/x?;v (as such, or in some individual instances not specified) «V- 
7Tto-Tew5 «at aKpoßvcniav Sid tt}s (anaphoric) 7tictt€ws. 

7. The individual article could scarcely be expected in formulas 
like dir' a-ypov, kv dypu>, eis dypov, since there is no question of a 
definite field (Mt. 13. 24 kv tu dypo> ovtov) ; if however we also find 
kv tw d. etc. without reference to a definite field (Mt. 13. 44, like to, 
Kpiva tou dypov 6. 28), the art. must then be regarded as generic (as 
we say ' the country '). 'Ev d^opö" L. 7. 32 = kv Tat? dyopais (rah om. 

§46.7.] THE ARTICLE. I49 

CEF al.) in Mt. 11. 1 6 etc.; aV dyopds Mc. 7. 4 a formula; similarly 
i-Trl Bvpois Mt. 24. 33 ; of time Trpos ecnrepav L. 24. 29, ews ecnrepas 
A. 28. 23, f*€XP^ f-WOWKTtov 20. 7 (Kara to peer. 16. 25), 8id vuktos 
with v.l. Sia rrj<s v. A. 5. 19, 16. 9 etc. (the art. denoting the particular 

night), Trpb KOipov — irplv Kaipov eivai Mt. 8. 29, kv Kaipco = oTav Kaipbs y 
24. 45, «X/ 31 Kat P°u L- 4. 13, A. 13. II, 71-pos Kaipov L. 8. 13, Kara k. 
R. 5. 6 ('at the right time'; 'in its due time'), napd Kaipov -qXiKias 
H. 11. 11 (so also in classical Greek without art.); dx 1 (e£) äpxfjs, kv 

ÜPXV (class.); but ev Kaipio ecrxdVw 1 P. 1. 5, iv «t^utcus t)p.epais 

2. Tim. 3. 1, Ja. 5. 3 (used along with «V eo-xdrov or -wv twv ^pepwv, 
§ 47, 2) come under the same class as d-n-o 7t/dwt^s t)p-epas A. 20. 18, 
Ph. 1. 5 (KABP insert tt}s), a7ro eKT-qs wpas Mt. 27. 45, e'ws top«? evdri-js 
Mc. 15. 33 (cp. Herrn. Vis. iii. 1. 2, Sim. ix. 11. 7), ews rpCrov ovpavov 
2 C. 12. 2, irpwTr}v </>i>Aa/ojv Kai 8evrepav A. 12. 10, 7rpa>Tr/s (the read- 
ing -TT7 of the MSS. is corrupt) pepi'Sos rrjs MaK. 7roAis 16. 12, and are 
explained by a usage of the older language, according to which the 
art. may be omitted with ordinal numbers, Kühner ii. 2 551, and not 
merely in phrases like eo-xdry üpa eo-rlv 1 Jo. 2. 18. The usage of 
the language is however regulated with still greater precision : in 
statements about the hour the art. is used only either anaphorically 
as in Mt. 27. 46, cp. 45, or where there is an ellipse of copa as in 
Mt. 20. 6 (in 9 it is anaphoric), or where a further definition is 
introduced as in A. 3. 1 rijv wpav Tfjs "irpoo-tvxfis rfv evdryv ; with 
•)}/zepa, on the other hand, it is only absent in the case of more 
indefinite expressions, but is used with more definite statements, 
thus rrj TpiTfl ^pepa always, and in Jo. 6. 39 ff. iv tq ecrxdrrj rjp.epa. 
— ©dvaros very frequently appears without an art., where German 
inserts one : ecos Bavdrov Mt. 26. 38, evoxos Bavdrov, d^iov Bavdrov, 
Trapa8i8ovai els Bavarov, yevecrBai Bavdrov ; the art. is used either of 
the actual death of a definite person (1 C. 11. 26), or (but this is 
almost confined to John's Gospel, Paul, and Apoc.) of death in the 
abstract, cp. 8. inf., Jo. 5. 24 p.eraßeßr]Kev Ik tou B. els n)v ((oqv, 1 or 
where death is half personified (Ap. 13. 3, 12), besides the case 
where assimilation to a noun in connection with it requires the 
article : to airoKpipa rov B. 2 C. 1. 9 (?/ irXrjyy rod 6. avrov 
Ap. 13. 3, 12 is anaphoric). — IIv€ü|ia : to dyiov irv. is used sometimes 
to a certain extent personally, and then with the article, sometimes 
for the godlike spirit moving in man, and then without an art., 
unless there is 'anaphora' as in A. 2. 4, 8. 18, cp. 17; in 10. 44 
(.Tre-rreo-ev to ttv. to ay. eVt 7ravras there is a reference to the well- 
known fact of the outpouring, but this instance also approximates to 
the first usage. Omission is also occasioned by the presence of a 
preposition or by assimilation : ev -kv. dylta, kv Swdpei irvevparos 
dyiov. — 3 Jo. 6 tvunnov eKKXycrias, 1 C. 14. 4 eKKXrjo-iav oiKoSopei 
scarcely need explanation ('a congregation'); in H. 12. 7 rts yap 
vlos, ov ov Trai8evei Trarijp, we might expect to have 6 ir. ' his father,' 
as in 1 Tim. 2. 12 after ywaiKi to have toü dvSpos 'her husband ' (so 
1 C. 11. 3 Ke^aXyj ywaiKus 6 dvi]p ; in E. 5. 23 the art. goes with 

1 On incidental cases of omission of the art. cp. 8. 

150 THE ARTICLE. [£46. 7-9. 

yi'i'aiK-os), but the relation is neglected ('whom a father does not 
chastise'; see also § 82, 2 note), cp. Herrn. Sim. ix. 28. 4 Iva 8ovkos 
Kvpiov iSiov dpv/ja-rjTai. UaTujp is used of God in Jo. 1. 14 8ö£av 
wi /xovoyevovs -n-apd irarpus (a kind of assimilation to fxovoy.), also in 
the formula riwrd deov naTpus i)j«wv R. 1. 7 etc.; itlo-t^ ktio-tt/ 

1 P. 4. 19, with v.l. w? 7T. kt., is at any rate agreeable to the sense. 
2w ywou^iv A. 1. 14 is a regular formula, cp. 21. 5 o-vv y. koa tckvois 
(classical Greek has the same phrase ; so we say ' with women and 
children'); further, brl Trpoo-ojirov ttIittuv L. 5. 12 etc., Kara -n-p. 

2 C. 10. 7 1 ; cp. 9. 

8. With abstract words the article is very frequently absent in 
Greek, where it is used in German ; the more abstract the sense 
in which such a word is used, the less liable is it to take any article 
other than the generic. Hence in some passages the question is 
rather to account for the presence of the art. than for its absence ; 
e.g. Col. 3. 5 Tropveiav axadap<riav Trados (.lzidvp-iav ... Kai ttjv ~Aeove£iar, 
ijrts ZcttIv eiSwAoAcnyna ' and that principal vice, covetousness ' etc. ; 
the additional clause r/ns k.t.X. entails the use of the article. In 
1 C. 14. 20 /xi) 7rou8ta yivurde. reus (ppecrLV, dAAd ttJ Kai<w. vrjir latere, T'i) 
k. is due to rats cppeviv. Cp. further H. 1. 14 «S Siaicoviav Ü—ootcA- 
Ao/xeva Sta rovs /xeAAovTas K\i]povo/xeiv o-WTt]piav (2. 3, 5. 9, 6. 9, 9. 28, 
11. 7 ; with art. only in 2. 10 rov dp^ybv -rijs o-wri/ptas cuItwv). In 

1 C. 13. 13 Vwl 81 [X€V€l TTiCTTLS «A/US ayaTTI] ... jlU^iMV 81 TOVTUiV -q 

uydTnj the art. is anaphoric (so also in the German ; cp. verses 4 and 
3, R. 13. 10 and 9 ; R. 12. 7 etVe 8iaKOVtav, iv ttj Slolkovio,' etre 6 
8i8acTKCoi', iv ttj StSacTKaAtct etc.; but ibid. 9 ff. 1} dydirrj dwiroKpiros, t>/ 
c/)tAaSeA(/)ta cf)iA.6(TTopyoL, ttj tljxij uAAiyAoi's Trporjyovp.evoi, tij (nrovSrf fii/ 
oKvrjpot, because they are virtues assumed to be well known etc.). 
St. Paul is fond of omitting the art. with dp-apria, v6p.os, and occa- 
sionally with (R. 6. 9, 8. 38, cp. supra 7), but the reason for 
his doing so is intelligible : R. 5. 13 d^pi yap vop.ov dpa/ma fy iv 
koo-lu» ('before there was a law, there was sin'), dp-apria 8e ovk 
iWoyeirat, lit) ovtos vop.ov, 6. 14 d/iapTia ('no sin,' cp. 8 ddvaros) vp.U)\' 
ov Kvptevcref ov yap ItrTe vrro vollov ('under any law') dAAd vtto xdpiv, 
3. 20 Std yap voliov €7rtyi'a)crts dtiapTias (a general statement). ~«p£ 
also inclines to an abstract sense (the natural state of man) ; hence 
we frequently have iv o-apnu and nearly always Kara. crdpKa (r^v is 
inserted as a v.l. in 2 C. 11. 18, and by nearly all MSS. in Jo. 8. 15). 

9. Whereas hitherto no case has occurred where the classical 
usage of the article is opposed to the N.T. usage, such opposition 
appears in the case of a noun which governs a genitive, and which 
in Hebrew would therefore be in the construct state or would have 
a suffix attached to it, and in either case would be without an 
article ; this Semitic usage has exercised a considerable influence on 
the Greek of the N.T. Avriters, especially where they make use of 
Semitic (i.e. Hebrew or Aramaic) originals. But as it was repugnant 
to the spirit of the Greek language, the article has in general only 

1 Also in profane writers like Polybius ; there are similar classical phrases, 
ko.t' ö<t>da\fxovs, iv 6<p0a\fj.cns etc. 

§46.9-10.] THE ARTICLE. I5I 

been omitted, where the whole clause was governed by a preposition 
(cp. supra 5-7), and the phrase has thus become a fixed formula : 
oVo (777)0) irpocrwTrov tivos, 1 Sid ^eipos tivos, Sid crroparos Tivos, vurb 
6<p8aXpwv crov L. 19. 42, ev 6<pdaXp,oi<; ijfiw Mt. 21. 42 O.T. (7rpo 6(p6. 
vfjiuiv Clem. Cor. i. 2. i), 1 formulas which are all thoroughly Hebraic, 
§ 40, 9 ; further instances are kv r\p.epais 'HpwSoti Mt. 2. 1, kv rjp-epa 
opyrjs R. 2. 5, Ph. 1. 6 a-xpi-S rjp.epas 'Ir/<rov Xpurrov, cp. IO, 2. 16 («V 
ty) rjp.. rov Kvpiov 1 C. 5. 6, 2 C. 5. 14, 2 Th. 2. 2 ; on the other 
hand the art. is omitted even with the nom., -qp-epa Kvpiov 1 Th. 5. 2 
[■>) add. AKL], 2 P. 3. 10 BC [with if nAKLP]) ; els oTkov avrQ>v 
Mc. 8. 3, cp. 26 (the use with the art. largely preponderates ; 
L. 14. I eis olkov [tov o. A] tivos Twv Napier, [cp. A. 18. 7, 10. 32] is 
excusable: rrjv kgit' olkov avrQtv eKKXrjcrLav R. 16. 5, Col. 4. 15, cp. 
Philem. 2, is a regular phrase and perhaps not a Hebraism); Ik KoiAias 
/j.>]Tp6s (avrov) Mt. 9. 12, L. 1. 15, A. 3. 2, 14. 8 ; kv ßißXw {wtjs Ph. 
4. 3 (but in Ap. with two articles), ev ßlßXiö \6yo>v 'Hcratov L. 3. 4, 
cp. 20. 42, A. 1. 20, 7. 42 (ffTJ ß. Mcoücrews Mc. 12. 26), lv SaKTvXo) deov 
L. 11. 20, e'v tu BeeA£e/?ovA apyovrL twv SaiLiovliov Mt. 12. 24 (and a 
v.l. in L. 11. 15), and many more. To these must be added phrases 
which contain a proper name in the genitive, where the omission of 
the art. is not dependent on the presence of a preposition : yrj 
'IcrpaijXj 2o8oyu,wv, AlyvTrrov, XaA&ziwv etc., ßacri Accus KlyvTrrov 
A. 7. 10, eis 7rdAiv Aaw'S L. 2. 4, cp. 11 ('the city of D.'), oikos 'Io-pa?)A 
Mt. 10. 6 (23 D) etc., e£ olkov koI irarpLas Aavt'S L. 2. 4 (but in 
L. 1. 33, H. 8. 8, 10 O.T., it takes the article as in the lxx.), e£ 
e<f>qp.epLas 'A/3ta L. 1. 5. It is not often that this omission of the art. 
goes beyond such instances as those mentioned, as it does in Mary's 
song of praise in L. 1. 46 ff.: ev ßpa^iovL avrov, Siavoia. KapSias airrcov, 
To-par/A 7rai8bs avrov, and in that of Zacharias ibid. 68 ff. : ev oiW 
AavlS 7raiSos auTou, e£ eyßpw ->]pwv, Siaö^io^s dyias avrov, 68ovs avrov, 
Sia. cnrXayxva eXeovs deov rjp.wv etc., by which means an unusually 
strong Hebrew colouring is here produced. 2 Cp. 2. 32 (Simeon's 
song of praise), Ja. 1. 26, 5. 20. 

10. In the case of proper names the final development of the 
language has been that in modern Greek, when used as proper names, 
they take the article ; in classical Greek, on the other hand, as also 
in the Greek of the N.T., proper names as such take no article, but 
may take one in virtue of a reference (anaphora) to something pre- 
ceding. Thus if Luke in A. 9. I says 6 8e 2ohjAos ere e/z7rve'tov k.t.A., 
his object in using the article is to remind the reader of what he has 
previously narrated about the man (8. 3 2auAos Se) ; we are then 
informed that he requested e7rio-ToAai eis Aa/xao-Kov, and further on 
in verse 3, that he drew nigh to rfj Aa/*ao-Kw (the place of his destina- 

1 Cp. supra 7 ad fin. with note * ; writers of pure Greek do not add a 
genitive to expressions of this kind. 

2 1 C. 2. 16 ri's yäp 2yvw vovv Kvpiov is a quotation, and so is 1 P. 3. 12 6(p9a\- 
fjiol Kvpiov, Grra avrov ; the lxx. abounds with instances of this kind. But in 
1 Tim. 5. IO ayiwv 7r65as, irööas is due to assimilation to äyiwv ; in 1 C. 10. 21 
rpaTrefas Kvpiov - rp. daifioviuv it is the character of the thing which is in ques- 
tion, cp. supra 5 (the one is a table of the Lord, the other a table of devils). 

152 THE ARTICLE. [§46. 10-11. 

tion), the use of the article being much the same as in 20. 7 kAcktcu 
aprov compared with 1 1 /cAao-as tov aprov. There is a subtle, and 
often untranslatable, nicety of language in this use of the article. 
But it is obvious that it depends in great measure on the caprice of the 
writer, whether in a case where frequent mention is made of the same 
person he chooses to express this reference to the preceding narrative 
or not : moreover the mss. are frequently divided. If in Acts 1. 1 
«AE al. (as opposed to BD) are right in reading 6 'Irjo-ous, then by 
this o the mind is carried back to the contents of the Gospel ; but 
such a reminder was by no means necessary. 'Itio-ovs, moreover, in 
the Evangelists takes the article as a rule, except where an apposi- 
tional phrase with the art. is introduced ; since obviously in that 
case either the article with the name or the phrase in apposition is 
superfluous. Hence Mt. 26. 69, 71 perd 'I. tov TaXtXaiov (JSafapaLov), 
27. 17, 2 2 'I. tov Xeyop.evov Xpio-TöV, L. 2. 43 'I. 6 7rais (2. 27 to 
7rcu6Yof 'Irjcrovv), cp. A. 1. 14 Mapia rrj p,-qrpl tov 'I., etc. (L. 3. 19 6 Se 
'HpwS^s 6 TfT/aaapx 7 ??, with reference to v. 1; e omits ö rerp.). Again, 
not only at the first mention of Jesus at all, but also in the first 
appearance of the risen Lord, the use of the art. is excluded, since 
here too there cannot well be anaphora : Mt. 28. 9 (6 'I. DL al.), 
L. 24. 15 (6 'I. DNPX al.) ; in John's Gospel, however, while on the 
one hand the anaphoric article is rendered possible at this point by 
the context and is actually found there (20. 14 Bewpd tov 'I^ow 
€o-Tü)Ta, after 12 to awpa tov 'h]crov), on the other hand it is often 
omitted elsewhere (e.g. in 1. 50), as frequently happens in the other 
Evangelists in the case of other less distinguished names, such as 
'Iwav^s and IleT/sos. In the Epistles, on the contrary, and in the 
Apocalypse (and to some extent in the Acts) the article is as a rule 
omitted as entirely superfluous (somewhat in the same way as is 
done by the Greek orators in the name of the adversary in a lawsuit) ; 
exceptions are 2 C. 4. 10 f. (but D*FG omit the art.), E. 4. 21 
(anaphora to u.vtw), 1 Jo. 4. 3 (anaphora to 2 ; but « has no art.). 
Xpiords is strictly an appellative, = the Messiah, and this is made 
apparent in the Gospels and Acts by the frequent insertion of the 
article ; here again the Epistles for the most part (but not always) 
omit it. — A special case is that of indeclinable proper names, with 
which the article, without its proper force, has occasionally to serve 
to determine the case of the word : Mt. 1. 2 ff. 'Aßpadp, iyhv-qo-ev 
tov 'Io-aaK...Tov 'IaKai/? etc. (the same form is also used in the case of 
declinable names, such as tov 'lovSav, and where there is a clause in 
apposition as in 6 tov Aam8 tov ßao-iXea ; ibid, Zk Trjs tov Ovpiov) cp. 
A. 7. 8, 13. 21. On 01 tov ZeßeSalov see § 35, 2. 

11. The preceding statements hold good equally for place-names 
as for personal names (the art. is anaphoric in A. 9. 3 vide supra, 
9. 38 Ty 'loTnrrj, 42 Tqs 'Io7T7T7js, cp. 36) ; ttJs 'Pdj/xrjs 18. 2 is due to 
ttJs 'iTaAtas in the same verse; t?)v 'Pal/i^v 28. 14 denotes Borne 
as the goal of the whole journey. Tpwas also, although strictly 
subject to an article ('AAe£av6peia rj Tpwds), only takes one in 
a peculiar way in 2 C. 2. 12 (without an art. in A. 16. 8, 20. 5). 
There is a peculiar use of the art. in the Acts in the statement of 

§46.11-12.] THE ARTICLE. 153 

halting-places on a journey: 17. 1 rr)v ' A^ittoXlv koX tt)v 'AttoAAw- 
i/iav (the places lying on the well-known road between Philippi and 
Thessalonica), 20. 13, 21. 1, 3, 23. 31, but in 20. 14 ff. there is no 
article, 'lepovo-aXr/p,, 'lepoa-oXv/xa hardly ever take an art., Winer, 
§ 18, 5 (ev rots 'lepocrokvfjLot.s Jo. 10. 22 ABL, cv 'Ieo. the rest; the 
force of the article is, in the very same place which was the scene of 
the previous narrative.) — The case is different with names of countries, 
many of which being originally adjectives (sc. yrj, x^P a ) are never 
found without an article: r) 'lov8aia\ r) TaXiXata 2 , r) M.ea-oirorap.ia, r) 
Muo-ia (Mucrtos adj.), r) c EAAas A. 20. 2 ; for a different reason r] 
'Acria like r) Evpu>Trr] (?) Aißvrj does not come under this head) takes 
the art. from early times, as one of the two divisions of the globe 
that are naturally opposed to each other, and keeps it even when 
it is used to denote the Roman province (in A. 2. 9 f. MecroTrorapiia, 
Ao-ia and r) Aißvr) r) Kara Kvprjvrjv are the only places with an 
article); only in A. 6. 9 do we find d-n-o KiAiKias kou 'Act., and in 
IP. 1. 1 the names of all the countries are without the art. (but 
there there is no art. at all in the whole address : e/cAfKTois Traptiri- 
S^ots Siao-7ro/Das IIovtou k.t.A.). 3 Also with other names of countries 
the article is found more frequently than it would be with names of 
towns : always with 'lraXia, generally with 'Axoucc (without art. 
R. 15. 26, 2 C. 9. 2) ; ^vpia, KiAi/aa, Qpvyla, Apaßia are strictly 
adjectives, and therefore generally take the art., but A. 21. 3 eis 2., 
KtA. 6. 9 (vide supra), 23. 34, ^pvyiav koX HapL<f>vXiav 2. 10, eis 
^Apaßiav G. 1. 17. Uap.<fivXia, although strictly on a par with the 
others (to Ha^vXiov TreAayo? A. 27. 5 ß text), yet in a majority of 
cases omits the art.; it has it in A. (27. 5 infra) 13. 13: eis Ilepy^v -njs 
Ila/A^vAtas is a chorographical gen. of the whole, § 35, 4, which abso- 
lutely requires the article (A. 13. 14, 22. 3, 27. 5, cp. 16. 12, 21. 39). 
AlyvTTTos never takes the art. (except in a wrong reading of nABCD 
in A. 7. 11, and of BC in 7. 36). — River-names : o 'lopBävrjs irorapos 
Mc. 1. 5, elsewhere 6 'lopSdvrjs (tov 7roTap:6v rbv Tißepiv Herrn. Vis. 
i. 1.2; classical usage is the same) ; names of seas : 6 'ASpias A. 27. 
27 as in classical Greek. 4 

12. The names of nations, where the nation as a whole is in- 
dicated, do not require the article any more than personal names 
require it, and it is therefore omitted in almost every instance where 
'IouScuoi are referred to in St. Paul's vindications of himself against 
the Jews, A. 26. 2, 3, 4, 7, 21, 25. 10 (as it is in the name of the 
opponent in speeches in an Athenian lawsuit, supra 10), the 

1 For which the Hebraic yrj 'Io<ü8a is also used Mt. 2. 6. (Cp. i) 'lovdaia yr) 
in Jo. 3. 22, and also according to D in 4. 3.) 

2 Exception L. 17. 11 fiiaov 2a./j.apelas Kai TaXtXcuas, where the omission with 
2. has produced the omission with T. 

3 This is not so much an enumeration of the persons addressed as a 
characterization of them, and the omission of the art. becomes intelligible by 
a comparison with 1 Tim. 1. 2 Tipodiw yvTqa'up t^kvu^Ss el yvr)cnov r. Cp. also 
Winer, § 18, 6, note 4 ; infra § 47, 6, note 1 on p. 159 ; see also 47, 10. 

4 Cp. on the article with names of countries etc. Kallenberg Philol. 49, 515 ff. 

154 THE ARTICLE. [§46. 12. §47. 

exception being 25. 8 rov vop.ov rwv 'lov&aio>v, where Toy v. 'IovSoucov 
could not well be used, while tov v. rov *i. (the Attic phrase, see 
§ 47, 7) was contrary to the predominant practice of the N.T. Also 
in the Pauline Epistles 'lovSaioi takes no article, except in 1 C. 9. 20 
eyevofxrjv tois 'IovSaiots ws 'IovScuos ('individual' article, those with 
whom I had to deal on each occasion ; tois dvop.ois etc. in the 
following clauses are similar); nor yet "EAA^vcs, although this 
comprehensive name, just because of its comprehensiveness (in 
opposition to ßdpßapoi, cp. 11 on 'Acria) in classical Greek regularly 
has the article x ; but the point with St. Paul is never the totality 
of the nation, but its distinctive peculiarity (cp. supra 5 on rjXios 
etc.), consequently R. 1. 14 "EAA^criv re xal ßapßdpots is not less 
classical than Demosth. viii. 67 Tvdo-iv "EAA^o-i koX ßapßdpois (all, 
whether Greeks or barbarians), or <ro<f>ols re kcu dvoyJTois which 
follows it in St. Paul, see § 47, 2. On the other hand in the 
narrative of the Evangelists (and to some extent in the Acts 2 ) the 
article is rarely omitted with 'lovSalot and other names of nations 
(Mt. 28. 15 7rapa 'IouScuois, D inserts rots: 10. 5, L. 9. 52 eis ttoXiv 
^a/xapiTiov is easily explained : in Jo. 4. 9 the clause is spurious). 
An instance of a national name in the masc. sing, is 6 'Io-par^A ; the 
art. is wanting in Hebraic phrases like 777 'I., 6 Aaos 'I. (viol 'I.), but 
also not infrequently elsewhere. 

§47. ARTICLE. II. The article with adjectives etc.; the article 
with connected parts of speech. 

1. Every part of speech which is joined to a substantive as its 
attribute or in apposition to it — adjective, pronoun, participle, 
adverb, prepositional expression, the same case or the genitive of 
another substantive etc. — may in this connection, and without the 
substantive being actually expressed, be accompanied by the article, 
which in the case of the omission of the substantive often takes its 
place and indicates the substantive to be supplied : thus 01 totc sc. 
dvOponroi, where the omission of ol is impossible. We deal with the 
latter case first, where the additional definition stands alone with- 
out the substantive. 

The adjective, where it is not a predicate to a substantive, in most 
cases takes the article, which may be either individual or generic. 
Masc. sing.: o üAtj^ivos 1 Jo. 5. 20 (God), o povos 'the only One' 
(God) Jo. 5. 44 B (the other mss. insert foos, cp. 17. 3), 6 7rovi/p6s 
' the devil,' 6 äytos tov deov L. 4. 34 (Christ), 6 Sikcuos (Christ) 
A. 22. 14, in all which cases the art. is individual and denotes him 
who possesses this quality Kar i^ox^v. Quite different is 1 P. 4. 18 
o Si'kcuo? — o dfre/3>j?, as we say • the righteous — the godless,' i.e. one 
(everyone) who is righteous or godless, regarded in this capacity, 

1 See Rhein. Mus. xliv. 12. 

2 In this book we also find the correct classical phrases 'A0ijva7oi Travret 17. 21, 
cp. § 47, ; irdfres 'lovScuoi 26. 4 BC*E (ins. ol «AC 2 al.). 

§47-1-] THE ARTICLE. 155 

where an individual is taken as a concrete instance of the genus : 
similarly with a substantive introduced 6 ayaöös äi'Öpto7ros Mt. 12. 35, 
L. 6. 45 (§ 32, 3) : frequently with participles : the usage stands 
midway between the individual and the generic use. A third mode 
of using the art. may be illustrated by Ja. 2. 6 tov irrwyov 'that 
beggar,' where it is individual and anaphoric, referring to the 
instance in verse 2 (§ 32, 3). The masc. plur. can also be used in 
this last sense, but it is more frequently generic : 01 ttAoi'o-ioi ' the 
rich,' ol äyioi a name for Christians. The fem. sing, is used ellipti- 
cally, rj ep?/uos and the like, § 44, 1 (the art. is individual : rj ep>;/ios 
X^pa. opposed to inhabited country). The neut. sing, is used with 
individual sense of a single definite thing or action, 2 C. 8. 14 O.T. 
to ttoXv and to oAtyov, Philem. 14 to dyadov arov 'thy good deed,' 
but more frequently with generic sense as in L. 6. 45 6 dyados 
avOpiiiiros €K toi> dyadov di]0~avpov ttjs KapoYas irpoifoepei to dyadov (cor- 
responding to ö ay. dvdp., vide supra), G. 6. 10 ipyafapcda to 
dyadov, R. 13. 3 to dyadov iroiet, cp. just before tu aya#a> epyw = tois 
dyadoZs epyots or dyadois epy., as Mt. 12. 35 (the parallel passage to 
L. 6. 45) has to (om. B al.) dyadd, and Trovypd. (LUA ins. to.) in the 
corresponding clause, cp. also R. 3. 8 to KaKa - rd dyadd. A peculiar 
usage of Paul (and Hebrews) is that of the neut. sing, adjective 
equivalent to an abstract noun, usually with a genitive : R. 2. 4 to 
Xpy]o-rov tov 6eov eis p.€Tavoidv ere ctyet, differing from \pi]o-TOTi]S (which 
precedes), since the adjective denotes this goodness in a concrete 
instance; 1. 19 to yvuo-Tov tov deov 'the fact of God's being known,' or 
else that part of God which is (to be) known at all, in which case 
4>avep6v eo-Tiv kv avToh must be 'is evident to them,' cp. § 41, 2. 
The genitive would then be partitive, and the adjective would not be 
used for an abstract noun. It is also perhaps so used in to SoKipaov 
u/xwv T»]s TTt'o-Tews Ja. 1. 3 = 1 P. 1. 7, for SoKt/Mios is = Soki/xos, see G. A. 
Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 86 ff.; see further 1 C. 1. 25 to piopbv 
tov deov o-o<pwT€pov twv dvOpomoDV eo-TLV (cp. piapla 21, 23), this divine 
attribute which appears as foolishness ; 2 C. 4. 17 to TapavTLKa kXatyphv 
tt}s ÖXiipews 57/Müv (opposed to ßdpos ibid.), 8. 9 to ttjs vptTepas dydin]s 
yvijo-iov, Ph. 3. 8 Sta to vTrepe^ov Trjs yvwo-ew? Xpco-Tov (more concrete 
and vivid than vrrepox^), 4. 5 to €7rt€t/c€? i-pi', R. (8. 3) 1 , 9. 22, 
H. 6. 17, 7. 18, 1 C. 7. 35 to evo-\ijpov kou einrdptSpov TW Kvpuo (§ 37, 7) 
d7rep6o-7rao-Tcos. This is the most classical idiom in the language of 
the N.T., and may be paralleled from the old heathen literature, 
from Thucydides in particular.- — The neut. sing, is also occasionally 

1 Here not in abstract sense, tö ädvvaTov tov vofxov means the one thing which 
the law could not do : still the genitive belongs to the same class of gen. in 
either case. 

2 Still it is not to be attributed to imitation ; since the imitation must, accord- 
ing to the usual way with imitative writers of that period, have betrayed itself 
in details. Moreover, other contemporary writers avail themselves of this 
method of expression : Strabo 3, p. 1 <iS to evfieTaxe Lplttov ttjs 0i;pas (Winer, 
§ 34, 2) ; on Joseph, and others, see W. Schmidt de Jos. elocut. 365 ff. See 
also Clem. Cor. i. 19. 1, 47. 5. "Quite a current usage in the higher koivt),'* 
W. Schmid, Atticism, iv. 608. 

156 THE ARTICLE. [§47-1-3. 

used collectively to denote persons, to e Aa-n-ov — tov Kptirrovos = ol 
e'AdTToves - twv k/dcittoviov, § 32, 1 ; a peculiar instance is to SoxSe- 
K<i<f>v\ov rjfjiCJv 'our 12 tribes ' A. 26. 7 (Paul before Agrippa), cp. 
Clem. Cor. i. 55. 6 to 8. tov 'lo-paijX (and with the same meaning 
31. 4 to SuSeKdo-KrjTTTpov t. 'I.). Elsewhere the neut. plur. is used of 
persons, 1 C. 1. 27 f. to. piopd tov Koo-p,ov etc., § 32, 1 ; also of things 
with the genitive, to. xpvTTTa tQ>v dvOpunriov, tov o-kotous, Trjs KapSias, 
tt/s ala-\vvrj<i R. 2. 16, 1 C. 4. 5, 14. 25, 2 C. 4. 2, to. dopuTa tov Otov 
R. 1. 20, a use analogous to that of the singular (vide supra), but 
referring to a plurality of phenomena. Other instances like to. opard 
Kai dopaTd Col. 1. 16 (without a genitive) need only brief mention; 
to. KaAa - to. o-airpd of fish caught in a net {what is good or bad) 
Mt. 13. 48. Neuters of this kind are not frequent in the Gospels. 

2. With the different ways of employing the adjective that have 
been quoted, the article is sometimes essential, sometimes unneces- 
sary. In R. 1. 14 as we have "EAAtktiV Te kcu ßapßdpois (§ 46, 12), 
SO also o"o<£ois Te /ecu dvo^Tots : Mt. 23. 34 7T/DO</>?/Tas Kai cro<jiOvs, 
11. 25 = L. 10. 21 d-Tro o-o(f>wv kolI crvvtTiov ... vrjTTtoLs, where the article 
would be as little in place as it would be if a substantive were 
employed (cp. § 46, 5 on 1 C. 15. 39), Mt. 5. 45 «ri Trov^povs kuI 
dyaOovs, 1 C. 1. 20 ttov o-o<f>6<; ; ttov ', occasionally too it 
is absent with neuter words, where its presence or omission appears 
to be more optional: Ja. 4. 17 Ka\6v ttouiv ('some good'), Herrn. 
x. 2. 3 TTovijpijv rjpydcraTo, but followed in 4 by to Trovrjpöv anaphoric: 
2 C. 8. 2 1 Trpovooi'/xevot KaAa ov p,6vov £i'to7rtov nvpiov, dAAa Kai kvuiirtov 
dvOpwTT<Dv, in this passage the article would have broken the con- 
nection with what follows. It is not accidental that beside ev tw 
<f>avep£> (Mt. 6. 4 etc.) there is regularly found els <pavepbv IXOelv 
(because the latter refers to something not yet in existence), Mc. 4. 22, 
L. 8. 17 ; usually too we have ev tw Kpvin<p as in Mt. 6. 4, R. 2. 29, 
but in Jo. 7. 4, 10, 18. 20 ev KpvirrQ (eis Kpvinr)v subst. L. 11. ^^) ; 
the opposite to which in John is not ev tw <£avepw, but (eV) -irapprjo-ia. 
or (f>avepws. Eis to peo~ov, ev tu p«™, *« tou pto~ov are used if no 
genitive follows ; otherwise the article is dropped, not so much on 
account of the Hebraic usage (§ 46, 9), as because ev tw pko-u v/uav 
would be superfluously verbose in a common formula ; classical Greek 
also leaves out the article. Instances of these phrases without a 
gen. and without an art. (frequent in class. Greek) are Mc. 14. 60 
(ins. to DM), L. 4. 35 only DTA al., 'Jo.' 8. 3, 9, A. 4. 7 DEP, 
2 Th. 2. 7. Cp. Mc. 13. 27 aV d.Kpov y?}$ ews dhepov ovpavov, Mt. 24. 
31, vide inf. 6, note 2; eV eV^aTov twi' -qpepwi' H. 1. 1, 2 P. 3. 3 
(er\dTo>v from (to.) ecryaTa, as in Barn. 16. 5, Herrn. Sim. ix. 12. 3), 
eV eo-^aTou tüjv ypovoiv 1 P. 1. 20 (tou \povov fc*, cp. Jd. 18), = 
DW ri^nxn lxx.; ews eo-xarov ttJs yrjs A. 13. 47 O.T., 1. 8; but 
to. ey^aTa tov dv6pu>Trov eVetVoi» Mt. 12. 45 = L. 11. 26, opposed to 
Ta TvpiOTa. 

3. The participle, when it stands alone and does not refer to a 
noun or pronoun, takes the article in most cases. Thus it is often 
found even as predicate with the article, though this part of the 

§47-3-4.] THE ARTICLE. I57 

sentence elsewhere generally omits the article. There are, however, 
frequent instances where even a subst. or adj. used predicatively 
takes the art.: Mc. 6. 3 ov\ outos Io-tiv 6 tcktojv ; (he who is known 
by this designation), Mt. 5. 13 vpds core to äAas tt)s yrjs, cp. 14, 
6. 22 ö Xv\vos tou o-wyuaTo« kcrriv 6 6<f)6a\p6<s ((rov), 16. 16 ah ei 6 

^/310-TOS O VIOS TOV 0COV, Mc. 15. 2 (TV €1 O /3a0-lA€l'S TÜJV 'lov8aili)V j 

Jo. 1. 4, 8 etc., 1 i.e. not om« salt etc. as compared with another, but 
that which alone has or deserves this title ; more striking are 
Jo. 3. io (tv el 6 SiSao-K-aAos rov 'lo-parfX 'the (great) teacher,' 5. 35 
€Keü'os (John) rjv 6 Xvxvos o Kaid/zevos kclI Ration-, the light of which 
one speaks in proverbs ; Mt. 24. 45 rt's dpa larlv 6 7tio-tos SovAos xal 
cppövipos ; in connection with an anarthrous noun Jo. 8. 44 öVt 
if/eva-Tys eo-Ttv kcu 6 irar^p avrov (a passage which from early times 
was grossly misunderstood, as though 6 narijp were a further 
subject, see Tischend.). So with an adjective Mt. 19. 17 eh Io-tiv 
6 dyados, cp. supra 2 ad init. This use is very frequent with 
participles: Mt. 7. 15 e/cetva ko-Ttv to koivovvto. tov avdpuTrov, Jo. 5. 
39 eneivai elo-LV ai papTvpovo-at Trepl epov etc., in all which cases it is 
taken for granted that something which produces this or that 
result exists, and then this given category is applied to a definite 
subject. A periphrasis of the verbal idea by means of e<W is the 
only case where an art. could not stand, § 14, 2.- — On the other 
hand a participle which stands alone is occasionally found, as in 
classical Greek, without the art. even when it is the subject of the 
sentence as in Mt. 2. 6 O.T. r/yovp-evos, but in this case it must be 
regarded as a substantive (cp. Wilke-Grimm rjydo-ßai; other exx. 
in § 73, 3). 

4. Adverbs or prepositional expressions when used alone to denote 
persons or things require the article practically in all cases (nX^o-iov 
'neighbour' is used as predicate without o in L. 10. 29, 36); in the 
same way the article is found governing the genitive, although all 
these modes of expression are not very frequent in the N.T. O! 
ii<€idei> L. 16. 26, Ta KOLTO), to avai Jo. 8. 23, Col. 3. 1 f.; ot irepl aiVöV 
Mc. 4. 10, L. 22. 49; IleT/jos Kai ot o-vv avTw L. 9. 32; with the 
gen. ot rov ZeßeSatov Jo. 21. 2 (§ 35, 2), Ta Kaio-apos and to toi! 
9eov L. 20. 35, ot tou XpLo-Tov 1 C. 15. 23 ; more peculiar is Ja. 4. 14 
to (A to) Trjs avpiov ' the things of the morrow,' ' what happens 
to-morrow'; 2 P. 2. 22 to tt/s dXr/dovs irapoipias 'the import of the 
proverb,' to tt)<s dp-qvi^ K. 14. 19, 'that which makes for peace/ 
Especially noticeable are the adverbial accusatives (§ 34, 7) like to 
kW epe 'so far as I am concerned,' R. 1. 15 (see § 42, 2 ; elsewhere 
to KO.T kpk appears as subject or object, Ph. 1. 12, Col. 4. 7), to i£ 
i'pv R. 12. 18, to xara o-dpKa 9. 5, where the insertion of the 
article puts strong emphasis on the limitation, 'so far as the 
material side is considered,' to ko.0' fjpkpav § 34, 7, in which case 
the art. may be equally well used or omitted, to Tput (ibid.) etc. — 
Quite peculiar is L. 17. 4 in D : idv €7TTOk:is dpapTy)o-rj /cat to OTTctKts 
i-n-io-Tpkiprj ('these 7 times,' cp. Syr. Sin., therefore anaphoric). 

J Cp. Winer, § 18, 7. 

158 THE ARTICLE. [§47-5-6. 

5. On the infinitive with the article see § 71. The neut. sing, 
of the article may be prefixed, in the same way as to the infin., to 
indirect interrogative sentences, but this usage is rarely represented 
except in the Lucan writings : R. 8. 26 to yap t'l 7rpoo-ei>£w/xe#a ovk 
oZ8afL€V } 1 Th. 4. 1 kolOws irapekdßeTt Trap' r)p,(Ji>v to 7T(ds (öVws without 
to FG) Set vp.d$ k.t.A. (Herrn. Sim. viii. 1. 4, Clem. Horn. i. 6); for 
Lucan instances see 1. 62, 19. 48, 9. 46 (do-r)X8ev 8 «iAoy 10- p.6s, t6 tis 
av eh) k.t.A.), A. 4. 2i, 22. 30. No apparent distinction in meaning 
is caused by using or omitting the article. — The art. to is prefixed 
to quotations of words and sentences as in classical Greek : to 'Aydp 
G. 4. 25 (v.l.), to di'eßr) E. 4. 9, to Ov ^ovciVeis k.t.A., Mt. 19. 18 
(to om. DM.), iv toj 'Aya7T;/o-ets k.t.A. G. 5. 14 ; cp. R. 13. 9, H. 12. 27. 

6. The adjective (or participle) which is not independent, but is 
used as an attribute to a substantive, must, as in classical Greek, if 
the substantive has the article, participate in this art. by being 
placed in a middle position — 6 dyados dvdpoiTros : or, if placed after 
the substantive, it must take an article of its own — o dvOpwTros 6 
dyadös ; if it stands outside the article and the substantive without 
an article, then it is predicative. If it is placed between the art. and 
the subst. greater emphasis is laid on the adjective — 6 Jyaöos 
dvßpioTTos Mt. 12. 35 : if it is placed after the subst. the emphasis 
falls on the substantive — eis tyjv yrjv t^v dyaQ-qv opposed to irerpav 
etc. L. 8. 8. Examples of predicative use : Jo. 5. 35 e'x w tt)v 
papTvpiav p,ei£(D = r] p., rjv eyw fiet£wi/ io-Tiv, Mc. 8. 1 7, H. 7. 24, 
1 C. 11. 5 dKaTaKaki'Trno ry Ke<f>a\r) = aKaraKaXnTTTOV €)^ov(ra Ti]v kc</>. 
(§ 38, 3), A. 14. 10 etrrev p.eyd\rj rrj (pwvrj (26. 24) = rj 81 <f>. fj CLTrtv peydXi-j 
?jv (also expressed without an art. by ^wvj) p,eydX.y, the adjective 
being placed after the noun, 8. 7 etc.). Under this head there comes 
also the partitive use of the adj., with /ueo-os as in classical Greek, 
L. 23. 45, Mt. 25. 6, A. 26. 13 (§ 36, 13), while for uk/dos to dupov 
with the gen. and so elsewhere to pko-ov is used 1 (A. 27. 27 Kara 
pko-ov rrjs vdktos, for which we have kcitci to pecrovvnTiov 16. 25, never 
as in classical Greek tfepl /xeo-a? vvktus: L. 16. 24 tö dnpov tov 
SaKTi'Aou avToG = Tov 8. anpov, H. 11. 2i, Mc. 13. 27) : 2 besides 
/xeo-os, this use in the N.T. is only found with 7ra? and 6'Aos (where 
they are contrasted with a part), vide infra 9. — -In the case of an 
attributive adjective it may also happen that the subst. has no 
article, while the adjective (participle etc.) that follows it has one, 
since the definiteness is only introduced with the added clause by 
means of the article, and was not present before. See Kühner 
Gr. ii. 2 530 : L. 23. 49 ywcuKes at o-vyaKoAoi'öoüo-ai women viz. 
those who etc., A. 7. 35 Iv x €l P L «yylAoi» tov 6<f>6evTos avr<p an 
angel viz. that one who etc.; this happens especially with a parti- 
ciple, which may be resolved into an equivalent relative sentence, 

1 Also in older Greek (Xenophon etc.), Lobeck Phryn. 537. 

2 Mt. 24. 31 air' dxpcov ovpavüv ews (tQiv add. B) &Kpwv clvtQv only resembles the 
classical usage in appearance : the plural d/cpa is occasioned by the plural 
ovpavoi. Cp. iax^Tov (-a) sup. 2 ad fin. 

§47-6-7.] THE ARTICLE. \ 59 

cp. § 73, 2; Jo. 14. 27 eiprjvrjv d^irjpi, ciprjvrjv ri\v i\ii\v 
oi&wfu v/xiv. 1 

7. The rule which holds good for adjectives holds good in the 
classical language also for defining clauses with an adverb or 
preposition ; to a certain degree also for attributive genitives : thus 
ö 'Aö^vcucuv Srjpos OV 6 Stjjuos 6 'Adtyvcucov, although 6 iraTi'ip pov is 
obligatory and 6 iWos tov o-TpaTrjyov is possible. In the N.T. geni- 
tives in a middle position are frequent, and still more so are genitives 
placed after the noun which they qualify, but without a repetition of 
the article : genitives in the later position with the article are not 
frequent: A. 15. 1 tw e#ei tw Mwi'io-ews (om. the 2nd tw DEHLP),- 
1 C. 1. 18 6 Ao'yos 6 tou crravpov, 3 Tit. 2. 10 r»)v SiSatrKaXiav t?)v tov 
o-toTT^pos rjpwv #eo{S. 4 Cp. § 46, 12. The partitive gen. must, as in 
classical Greek, stand outside the principal clause and without a 
repetition of the article : 01 7towtoi tw 'IouScuW (A. 28. 17 is 
different, tous ovto.s twv 'IovS. v-pwrovs). Where the defining clause 
is formed by a preposition, if the clause stands after the main clause, 
the article appears to be especially necessary for the sake of clearness 
(just as there are scarcely any instances of such a prepositional 
clause used as attribute to an anarthrous subst. : in 1 C. 12. 31 et ti 
for en is read by D*F [Klostermann], whereby kolO' iwepßoX^v is 
separated from 68bv, sc. fyXovre), and the omission of the article in 
classical authors is by no means sufficiently attested ; in the N.T., 
on the other hand, a considerable number of instances of omission are 
commonly supposed to exist, apart from those cases where the subst 
has additional defining clauses (infra 8), 1 C. 10. 18 /?Ae7reTeTov'Icrooo)A 
Kara adpKa, 1 Th. 4. 16 ot va<pol (ot add FG, cp. it. Vulg. qui in Chr. 
sunt) iv Xoio"tüj, 2 C. 9. 13 (tJ)) oVAot^ti rrjs Koiviovias eis avrovs 
(where, however, rrj vTrorayfj ttjs opoXoy ius v|j,wv [vide infra 8] eis to 
k.t.A. precedes, and vp.wv is also to be supplied with koiv.), R. 6. 4 
crvveT<i<f)7)p.€v avrw 810 tov ßaTTTio-paros eis tov ddvarov (cp. 3 eis tov 
6. avrov ißaTTTicrOrjpei'). This last instance (if our text is correct) 
appears conclusive ; but in tov 'IcroaryA Kara o-dpKa the repetition of 
the art. was quite impossible, as the sense is 6 Kara a. wv 'Icrp. (lo-p. 
is predicate) ; so with 01 Kara o\ nvpioi E. 6. 5 v.l. 01 k. Kara o-., 
Col. 3. 22 id., to. Wvq kv crap/a E. 2. II 5 ; 6 Seapios ev Kvp'np 4. I, 

1 Buttmann is not to be followed in his assertion (p. 81) that the art. had 
sometimes to stand before the substantive as well ; Winer, § 20, 4 is here 
correct. L. 5. 36 iiriß\-qp.a rb äirö tov kclivov is a wrong reading, which is only 
by error found in Lachmann. A. 15. 23 6.3ek<poh (this is the right reading, see 
the author's note on that passage), Tors Kara T ; qv ' Apri6xei-ai> is an address, see 
§ 46, 11, note 3. 

2 ~SIu)'v(t4cos is found without an art. after the noun qualified in A. (13. 39), 
15. 5, Mc. 12. 26, L. 2. 22, 24. 44 (Jo. 7. 23 ö vöfios 6 M. «, like 6. 33 6 äpros 6 
tov 6eov KD), A. 28. 23, 2 C. 3. 7. 

3 In the preceding verse (17) we have 6 CTavpds tov XpiaTov ; so that ö tov <tt. 
appears to be a kind of anaphora. 

4 Appositional clauses like Mapta i] tov 'laKÜßov sc. /J-riTrjp do not come under 
this head. 

5 Hence the reading of DEFG in R. 9. 3 tuv a.Se\<puii> p.ov twv avyyevuv pov Ti3v 
(om. cett.) (card <rdp/ca is wrong. 

l6o THE ARTICLE. [§47.7-8. 

Tot? 7rAovcriois iv Tw vvv alwvt 1 Tim. 6. 17, o rrt(TTos ey i\a\io~Tto 
L. 16. 10, in all which instances the closely connected predicative 
clause could not be severed by the insertion of the article. With a 
participle (R. 15. 31 tw direidovvTiov iv i-y 'IovScua) it is quite 
obvious that the article is not repeated. 

8. If a single substantive has several defining clauses it often 
becomes inconvenient and clumsy to insert all of these between the 
article and the substantive, and there is a tendency to divide them 
so that some stand before the substantive and some after it. But in 
this case the clauses placed after the substantive do not require the 
repetition of the article, which on the contrary is only repeated in a 
case where the particular defining clause is emphasized (or implies a 
contrast), or else if the meaning would be in any way ambiguous. 
Similarly the additional article can be dispensed with if the sub- 
stantive is immediately followed by a genitive, which does not 
require the article (supra 7), and this again is followed by a further 
defining clause with a preposition : E. 3. 4 tj)v o-vvea-iv pov iv tw 
fivcTTqpiM tov Xp. (tt|v Iv would contrast this particular cri'veo-is of Paul 
with another), 1 G 1. 13 ttjv ipvqv dvao~Tpo<f>i]v 7Tore iv no 'lovoaicrpLto. 
Exx. of repeated article : 1 Th. 1. 8 ■>) 7uo-tis vp.wv r\ irpos tov debv 
egtkijXvdev (to prevent ambiguity), 2 C. 9. 3 (ditto), R. 7. 5 (ditto), 
8. 39 (emphasis). An adjective (or participle) following a genitive 
must take the art.: 6 vl6<s p.ov 6 dyairrjTos Mt. 3. 17 ; cp. 2 C. 6. 7, 
H. 13. 20, E. 6. 16 (to om. BD*FG) ; if there is no art. it is a predi- 
cate : Tit. 2. 1 1 eTre<pdvi] 1) X^P' 5 T0 ^ @ e °v (v add. C° al. ) o-omy/Dios 
■n-da-iv dvOpwTTOis. The presence of a numeral between the art. and 
the noun never renders a subsequent article dispensable : Ja. I. 1 
tcus SwSeKa cf>vXah rals iv — , Jo. 6. 13, Ap. 21. 9 (since the numeral is 
nothing more than a nearer definition of the plural) : on the other 
hand an adjective (or participle) in this position can exempt a sub- 
sequent adj. from the article : 1 P. 1. 18 ttjs p-araias vp.£>v dvao-Tpo<f>f}<; 
7raTpoTrapa8nTOV (but Trarp. dvaxn. is read by C Clem. Orig.), 1 C. 10. 3 
to O.VTO ßpCopa. 7rv£vp,aTLKov 1 (k c DEFG al., but ttv. stands before ßp. 
in N*AB al.), G. 1. 4 toi> iveo-Tu>TOS alwvos irovrjpov (n c DEFG al.; tov 
at. tov iv. tt. n*AB a harsher reading ; so Herrn. Mand. x. 3. 2 to 
Trvevp.a to 8odev to dvdpwTrw IXapov), cp. Kühner ii. 2 532 ; no offence 
is caused by o ttio-tus SovAos kou <pp6viuo<; Mt. 24. 45, where kcu carries 
over the article ; on the other hand in Ap. 2. 1 2 t^v pop.<f>aiav r>]v 
Uo-Topov Tf|v ö^eiav the repetition is necessary, as in H. 11. 12 17 
appos 1) trapd to x € 'Ao? ttjs öa\do-o-r)<i rj dvapL6pr)T0<i. The repetition 
of the art. before the subst. is rare (more frequent in class. Greek) : 
L. 1. 70 twv dyitov twv dir' aldvos ... irpocfi-qTiov only AC al. (cp. 
A. 3. 2l), 1 P. 4. 14 to tt}s 86£rj<; kcu rb tov Oiov Trvevpa ; but 6 dAAos, 
ol XoLiroi, if not followed immediately by a noun but by a defining 
clause, require to be followed by an article, as in classical Greek : 

JO. 19. 32 TOV ClAAoV TOV 0-VO-TOVptO#6VTOS, Ap. 2. 24 TOIS Aoi7TOtS TOIS 

1 1 C. 8. 7 rrj cvvyQeia. (al. <rvyei8ri<Tei) ews dpn tov eioüXov, the ordinary position 
of the gen. being reversed (but r. eld. 2. <5E. ALP). 

§47-8-9.] THE ARTICLE. x 6i 

kv Qvaretpois (since ctAA. and A. do not unite with other defining 
clauses to form a single phrase). 

9. On oStos, €K€ivos, avrds ' self ' with the article when used with a 
subst. see §§ 49, 4 ; 48, 10. Toiovtos is occasionally preceded by the 
art. (when referring to individuals or embracing a class) : Mt. 19. 14 
twv TOLovrwv (referring to the previous to. iraiBia) ; but this rarely 
happens when a subst. follows, 2 C. 12. 3, Mc. 9. 37 ABDL 
(toiovtois before Tors in Jo. 4. 23 is predicative). Tö ttjXikoCto k-t/to? 
Herrn. Vis. iv. 1. 9. "EKaarTos is never followed by the art. (Attic 
usage is different) ; with 8\os and iräs (cp. supra 6 ; diros is 
only found in Luke with any frequency) l the relations are more 
complicated. Thus, with irdvres 'all' the subst., to which it 
belongs, as one which must be understood in its entirety, is 
naturally defined by the (generic) article, although Trdvres in itself 
does not require the art. any more than orros does ; hence iravTes 
AOvyvatot as in Attic A. 17. 21, because names of peoples do not 
need the art., cp. 26. 4, § 46, 12, note 2; also in (Luke and) Paul 
TTcivTes avOpwiroi A. 22. 15, E. 5. 12, 18, 12. 17, 18 etc. (Herrn. Mand. 
iii. 3), often in the weakened sense of ' all the world,' ' everybody ' ; 
cp. for Attic usage Kühner ii.- 545 2 (iravres äyyeAoi H. 1. 6 O.T.). 
It is just this weakening of meaning which is the cause of the omis- 
sion; the words do not denote any totality as such, but the meaning 
approximates to that of 7ra? 'every' (vide infra), as in iracnv dyaßols 

G. 6. 6, 1 P. 2. I 7rao-as KaraAaAias (iracrav KaTaAaAiav N*), iracriv 
t'crrepov/zevois Herrn. Mand. ii. 4. But in 2 P. 3. 16 Trdcrais tcus (t. 
om. ABC) e7rio-ToAcus, E. 3. 8 Trdvrwv twv dyiwv (tw ins. P. only), the 
art. according to classical usage can by no means be omitted ; a 
similar violation of classical usage is seen in L. 4. 20 irdvTwv iv rrj 
o-i'vaywy?/ ('those who were in the syn.'), cp. 25. 3 A/x<£ot£/doi like 
7rai'T€5 also takes the art., but only in L. 5. 7 (elsewhere used without 
a subst.). ITas 'whole' in Attic is only used of definite individual 
ideas, 8\os 'whole' also of indefinite ideas, and so in Jo. 7. 23 6Xov 
äv6pu)7roi' 'a whole man,' A. 11. 26 IviaiTov 6Aov, also perhaps L. 5. 5 
81' SXrjs vvktos ' a whole night ' (v.l. with tt)s) ; the latter word is also 
used with anarthrous city-names, A. 21. 31 6'Ai/ Tepoi'o-aAv//* like 7rao-a 
(om. D) 'Iepoo-oAi'/za Mt. 2. 3 (§ 46, 11); elsewhere it always takes 
the article. lias before an anarthrous subst. means 'every' (not 
every individual like eK-curro?, but any you please) : Mt. 3. 10 jrav 
SevSpov, 19. 3 Kara iracrav alriav, etc.; 7racra SiKaioo-wi] = irav o av rj 
Sikcuov (W.-G-r.) Mt. 3. 15 ; it is also equivalent to summus (W.-Or.): 
/zeTci 7rd(ri]S Trappr/crias A. 4. 29 ; 7racr^ o-vveLStjcrei dyadtj A. 23. I (in 

1 The instances besides those in Luke are Mt. 6. 32, 24. 39 {iravras D), 28. 11 
(HiravTo. A), Mc. 8. 25 (D wdvra), 11. 32 v.l., ' Mc!' 16. 15 (om. D), G. o. 28 
«AB 3 , E. 6. 13 (all mss.), Ja. 3. 2. The Attic distinction, that tt£s stands after 
a vowel, äTras after a consonant (Diels Gott. Gel. Anz. 1894, 298 ff.), cannot be 
made in all cases even in Luke, cp. 1. 3 avwdev iracn.v, although äiras is gener- 
ally found after a consonant. 

2 So Dem. 8. 5, 42. 

3 The words iv rr/ away, are probably spurious, as they vary much in their 
position in different mss. 

1 62 THE ARTICLE. [§47. 9-10. 

every respect). The distinction between 7ras with and without the 
art. appears in 2 C. 1. 4 (W.-Gr.) : 6 TrapaKaXuv ?)/ms eVt irdo-y t;/ 
dXl\p€i rjfjuav (that which actually exists in its totality), ci's to Svvao-Oai 
fjfxas 7rapa.Ka\dv tovs lv irdcrr) 6\. (any which may arise) ; so also 
A. 12. II 7ruo"//5 T/ys TrpocrSoKtas Tov Aaou tu>v 'lovSatiov (the whole 
expectation actually entertained); 1 C. 13. 2 irdcrav t^v yi/wo-iy and 
-. t. TTia-Ttv (all that there is in its entirety). But in imitation 
of Hebrew we have -us 'Io-pavjA R. 11. 26, the whole of I., 7ras oucos 
Toy). A. 2. 36 (e£ 0A7/S KapStas airrwi/ Herrn. »Sim. vii. 4), cp. § 46, 9 ; 
similar but not incorrect is nao-a. crdpg 'all flesh,' 'everything 

fleshly ' = ' all men ' pfca-bs) Mt. 24. 22, L. 3. 6, R. 3. 20, 1 C. 1. 29 
( never otherwise), cp. sup. 7ravTes avdpioiroi ; with a negative as in 
Mt. loc. cit. ovk av ia-iodi] tt. o\ like Hebr. £b ... x5 = 'no flesh,' §51,2. 
In other cases 7ms 6 and thx? must be carefully distinguished: Ph. 1. 3 
OTt irdo-g rß //.ma ' the whole ' (or omit rrj with DE), R. 8. 2 2 77-ao-a ?/ 
KTia-is 'the whole creation,' irdo-a. kt. 'every created thing' 1 P. 2. 13, 
Col. 1. 23 (with TTj n c D c al?), 15 jt/mdtotokos »rocn/s KTttrews. Avery 
frequent use is that of 7ras o with a participle (§ 73, 3) cp. the partic. 
with art. without 7ras e.g. 6 KkeirTtav 'he who stole hitherto' E. 4. 28; 
without an art. Mt. 13. 19 iravTo^ ukovovtos, L. 11. 4; so always if 
a subst. is interposed, Mt. 3. 10 -n-dv SevSpov //,>) ttocovv k.t.A. — 'O ims, 
ol irdvTes contrast the whole or the totality with the part, A. 19. 7 
fjo-au ol ;ravTes aVS/Des (' on the whole,' ' together ') cocret owSe/co. (cp. 
class, examples, e.g. Thuc. 1. 60), 27. 37, G. 5. 14 6 nds v6p.os iv hi 
Aoyw 7re7rA//pwTai (opposed to the individual laws), A. 20. 18 rl>v 
TrdvTCi. xpovov (oVö TrpwTrj<; ?}/xepa9 has preceded); frequently in Paul we 
have ol TrdvTes without a subst., 1 C. 9. 22 (a comprehensive term for 
the individual persons named in verses 20 ff. ; also in 19 ttuo-iv has 
preceded), 10. 1 7, R. 1 1. 32, E. 4. 13, 2 C. 5. 10 toi<? 7ravras ?/pas (not only 
he, of whom he had previously spoken), somewhat differently in 15 01 
7rai/res 'they all' (iVep irdvTiav has preceded), cp. Ph. 2. 21; similarly 
to. TrdvTa in 1 G. 12. 6 (opposed to the individual thing), 19, R. 8. 32, 
11. 36 (the universe), 1 C. 15 27 f. (similarly, and with reference' to 
irdvTa preceding), etc.;^ also A. 17. 25 (Mc. 4. 11 v.l.). A peculiar 
use is 1 Tim. 1. 16 rqv diracrav (7rao~av) fiaKpoOvfitav 'the utmost 
(cp. supra) long-suffering which He has,' cp. Herrn. Sim. ix. 24. 3 
TT)v aTrkoTqra avTiov kcu irdo-av v^TnortjTa. Like 01 -avres, to. ~dvra 
we also have ol d^Tepoi, rd d/ufroTepa E. 2. 14, 16, 18 (A. 23. 8, but 
here there is no contrast to the individual things, so that a/x</>oTepa 
Tadra would be more correct) ; tovs Svo E. 2. 15 vtrumque, because 
ot dfujioTepoi. 16, 1 S had to be used to express utrique. 

10. A phrase in apposition with a proper name takes the article, 
if a Avell-known person has to be distinguished from another person 

proper name itself must generally 
without the art., §46, 10 (hence the reading in A. 12. 12 t>> 
[nABD] Mapius t>7? p.i]Tp6$ is incorrect, cp. ibid. 25 D*) ; on the 
other hand we have -/'//wn ßvpcrd 10. 6, MväoW rivi Kv-n-puo 21. 16, 

§47- 10-11.] THE ARTICLE. ^3 

Mai/a^i/ 'HpwSou tov Terpadp^ov o-iWpo<£os 13. 1 (ibid, the MSS. 
except D* wrongly read Aovkios 6 Ki'pr/vcuos) ; the necessity for the 
person to be well known does not hold in the case of 6 (e7ri)KaXov- 
pevos with a surname following, or the equivalent 6 kgu, or again 
where a man is denoted by the name of his father or other relation 
by an art. and gen. (with or without i>ids etc.), § 35, 2. On <&apa<b 
ßaaiXews Aiyvirrov A. 7. io see § 46, 9. — In the case of the 
anarthrous 6e6<s (§ 46, 6) the article may be dispensed with in a clause 
in apposition with it, but only in more formal and ceremonious 
language, as in the opening of an epistle, R. 1. 7 cnro Oeoi -n-arpbs ^w 
kcu Kvpiov 'I. Xp., 1 Th. 1. I iv deu> irarpl kcu KvpCio 'I. Xp., 1 Tim. 1. I 
d7rdcrToAos ... Kar lirnay^v 6tov crojTrjpos rjp,u>v (cp. § 46, 11, note 3); 
similarly Kvpws (§ 46, 6) is used in apposition to 'Irjcr. Xp., though 
not often except in an opening clause (Ph. 3. 20). — In 6 o.vtl8ikos 
i'/zojv StdßoXos 1 P. 5. 8 dvTtS. is treated as an adjective ; Jo. 8. 44 
i'/xets Ik tou 7raT/3os toü cua/3dAoi> icrre must mean ' you are descended 
from your father (cp. 38) the devil'; but the first article is apparently 
spurious (and irarpos is predicative, supra 6). On Mt. 12. 24 see 
§ 46, 9. 

11. Where several substantives are connected by kcu the article 
may be carried over from the first of them to the one or more sub- 
stantives that follow, especially if they are of the same gender and 
number as the first, but occasionally too where the gender is 
different: Col. 2. 22 Kara to evTaApara kgu <$6§acrKaAi'as rwv dv6pa>7rwv, 
L. 14. 23 «'s tos 68ovs kou (f>payfiov<s, 1. 6, Mc. 12. 33 v.l. (Winer, 
§ 19, 3). Inversely there are a number of instances where with the 
same gender and number the repetition of the article is necessary or 
more appropriate : A. 26. 30 6 ßao-ikevs kcu 6 ^-yepwv (different per- 
sons), 1 C. 3. 8 6 (favTevwv kou 6 iroTifov ev etcriv (ditto), Jo. 19. 6 01 
dpx^pels kcu ol iV>/peTcu (whereas «PX- with Trpeo-ßvTepoi, or ypappareis 
may dispense with a repetition of the art., Mt. 16. 21 etc.), pera£i> 
tov Ovcrtaa-Trjpiov kol tov oiKov L. 11. 51 (Mt. 23. 35). Also in the 
case of re kou repetition generali} 7 takes place, though in A. 14. 6 we 
have tQ>v kdv(ov re kou (tw add. D) TovScuW. There is frequently a 
variety of readings, but the alteration in the sense is for the most 
part unimportant. The article appears to be dropped, not unnatur- 
ally, between two clauses in apposition connected by kcu, in Tit. 2. 13 
(ti)i') iirufidvtLav rrjs 86£i]$ tov peyaAov deov kou crwTrjpos rjp.(ov I. Xp., 
cp. 2 P. 1. 1 (but n here reads Kvpiov for deov, probably rightly, cp. 
11, 2. 20, 3. 2, 18) ; however in Titus loc. cit. o-uTrjpos ?}p. 'I. Xp. may 
be taken by itself and separated from the preceding, in which case 
cp. for the loss of the art. supra 10; Winer, § 19, 5, note 1. 




1. The nominatives of the personal pronouns — kyu>, a-6, ypais, i>/.id$ 
— are, as in classical Greek, not employed except for emphasis or 
contrast. Jo. 4. 10 o-v av yrqo-as avrov (not, vice versa, I thee), 
A. 4. 7 kv Troiq. SvvdfJLei kiroijaraTe touto Vfxds ; (people like you, this 
miracle), Jo. 5. 44 7rtos 8vvao-9e i'peis ino-revo-ai (persons like you), 
39 i'uets 8oK€iT€ kv ai'Tats £(or)v alwviov e'x etv (y ou yourselves), 38 ov 
a7r€CTT€iAev i/ceivos, tovtm lyxets ov irio-Tevere (e/cetvos — v/ieis contrasted), 

I. 30 v7T€p ou eyo) cittoi/ (I myself), 42 crv e? Stpoov..., crv K\.i]drjO"i] 
K?;<pas (cp. 49, this particular person as opposed to others), E. 5. 32 
to [ivo~Ti]piov TovTO peya ecrriV* eyw 8e Aeyw eis Xptcrröi> Kai eis t?)v 
eKKkqtriav (subject and speaker contrasted). — As an equivalent for 
the third person in the N.T., especially in Luke (Mt., Mc; also 
lxx.), avnte is used = 'he ' with emphasis (besides 6 in o 8k, 6 p.kv oZv, 
% 46, 3) 1 , L. 2. 28 (the parents bring in the child Jesus) kcu oivt&s 
(Simeon) avrb k.t.A. (in Simeon's own narration of the event 
it would run kcu eyoj, 1. 22, 2. 50 (kcu avrol), 9. 36 (ditto), 

II. 14 (kcu avrb), L. 24. 21 i]\.iri£op.€v on avros ktrriv 6 peAAwi' 
XvTpovcrdau tov 'Icrpa?;A (here too kyio would be used if the story 
were told in the first person), Mc. 14. 44 ov av (ptAv/o-w, ai'-ros ko-nv 
(he is the man), A. 3. 10 kireylvitio-Kov 8k avrov, 6'ti airrös (BDEP oi'Tos, 
cp. Jo. 9. 8 f.) rjv 6 ... Kadtjpevos (1st pers. ort eyoj ?/u?p', cp. Jo. 9. 9), 
cp. Herrn. Mand. vi. 2. 5 ytVwo-Ke on airros eVriv kv o-oi: Mt. 12. 50 
(cp. with owtos Mc. 3. 35), 5. 4 ff. Also auros 8k, Mc. 5. 40 (6 6"e 
A), L. 4. 30, 8. 37 etc. (even where the name is added, Mt. 3. 4 
avTos 8k b [6 om. D] 'IwdvTys, ' but he, John' ; Mc. 6. 17 cu'tos yap 
6 [6 om. D] 'Up.); the feminine of airros is not so used : avri] should 
be written in L. 2. 37, 7. 12, 8. 42 Kat aii-nj («ai avrbs is also a 
wrong reading in 8. 41 BD, and in 19. 2 where D reads oin-09 
without Kat). Classical Greek employs sometimes ovtos, sometimes 
eKeivos (6), § 49, 2 and 3 ; in modern Greek airros has become a 
demonstrative pronoun and dropped the meaning of 'self (for 
which 6 1810s is used). Of the oblique cases, the genitive alone is 
used with emphasis in this way (class. ki<eivov etc.): L. 24. 31 avrcav 
8k 8irjvoi\6rjo-av ot b(f>9a\p.oi, Mt. 5. 3, 10, cp. infra 7 (Herrn. Sim. v. 
7. 3 avrov yap «rrtv irao'a kgovcria, viii. 7. I aKOve Kat 7rept avrioi'). 

2. A prominent feature in the Greek of the N.T. (and still more 
in that of the lxx.) is the extraordinary frequency of the oblique 
cases of the personal pronouns used without emphasis. The reason 
for this is the dependence of the language on Semitic speech, where 

1 Cp. Buttmann, p. 93 ff. (Winer, § 22, note 4). The use is an old one, 
though foreign to Attic writers : Horn. II. iii. 282 cutös frrettf" EX^crjc f'x^w ... 
i]/j.eU d^, 'he ... we.' 

§ 48. 2-3.] POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. ^5 

these pronouns are easily and conveniently attached as suffixes to 
substantival and verbal forms, and are therefore everywhere 
employed, where the full expression of the thought requires them. 
The case is different with classical Greek, which has separate words 
for them, of which some indeed are enclitic, but those for the 
3rd person and for the plural are dissyllables, and therefore it 
expresses these words only so far as they are essential to the 
lucidity of the sense, while in other cases it leaves them to be 
understood. The tendency of the N.T., then, is to express the 
pronoun in each case with every verb which is joined with other 
verbs in a sentence, and not, according to the classical method, to 
write it once and leave it to be supplied in the other instances ; 
again, the possessive genitives fiov, crov, avrov etc. are used with a 
quite peculiar and tiresome frequency, being employed, to take a 
special instance, with reference to the subject of the sentence, in 
which connection the simple pronoun cannot possibly stand in 
classical Greek, but the reflexive is used instead, vide infra 6. Still 
no rule can be laid down, the practice depends on the pleasure of 
the writer, and superfluous pronouns are often omitted by the 
better MSS. As in classical Greek ' my father ' may be expressed 
at the option of the writer by 6 iraWjp p.ov (o e/xbs 77-.) or o Trartjp, so 
also in John's Gospel Christ speaks of God as 6 rrar-qp p.ov, and 
more often as o irar^p, 8. 38 eyw a eopaKa 7rapa tw irarpl (p,ov add. 
&D al.) AaAw, kou<; ovv a rjKovcrarc irapa rov 77-0:77305 (so without 
vfiiov BLT) iroiclrc : Mt. 27. 24 direvixparo ras ^ttpas. The pronoun 
is omitted in other cases or connections: A. 16. 15 irapcKaXccrcv 
(SC. ^as) Xeyovcra (without rjp.iv), 19 CTrt,\aß6p.evoi rov Uavkov Kai 
rov 2iAay et'A/<i>crav k.t.A. (instead of eTnXaß. rov II. ... ci'Ak. avrovs). 
On the other hand we have 22. 17 kykvero p.oL vTroo-rpkipavri — irpocrcv- 
\op,evov p.ov — yeveo-Oat pe (§ 74, 5), 7. 21 e/cTeÖevros 81 avTov, avet'Aaro 
avrov — kcu eg€dpe\ avrov (vide ibid.; also for combinations such 
as Mt. 6. 3 crov ttolovvtos ... p.i] yvdorio rj aptcrrepa crov, Mt. 8. I, 
v.l. e£e\66vTL ai'Tü)... rjKoXovdrjo-av ai'rw). On the ace. and inf. 
instead of the inf. see § 72, 2 and 3 ; on avrov etc. after the relative 
§ 50, 4. 

3. The longer and unenclitic forms of the pronoun of the 1st pers. 
sing. — e/Aou, ep.01, kp.k — are employed as in classical Greek to give 
emphasis or to mark a contrast ; they are generally used after a 
preposition (even eveKev), except after irp6<; : Mt. 25. 36 (k kp.k), 
Mc. 9. 19 (do.), A. 22. 10 (do.: in 8 kpk n*AB); with 77730s the short 
forms are used even where there is a contrast, Mt. 3. 14 eyw \puav 
e^to vtto aov ßa7TTLcr8r)vai, Kai o~h epxv ~pos p.e (where Tisch, writes 
7^6? pe ; the classical language certainly knows nothing of an 
accented p.e); only in Jo. 6. 37 77730s ep,e is read by nearly all MSS., 
in the next clause 77730s ep,e is read by nE al., 7rpos p.e ABD al. (we 
also find Zvunriov p.ov in several MSS. in Lc. 4. 7). Cp. Kühner 
Gr. i. 3 , i. 347. It follows that in the case of the second person, 
the forms crov etc. after prepositions other than 777305 should be 
accented. Of the strengthened Attic forms eywye, there are 
no instances in the N.T. 

1 66 PERSONAL, REFLEXIVE AND [^ 48. 4-6. 

4. There is a wide-spread tendency among Greek writers, when they 
speak of themselves, to say T|n«is instead of iy<S>. The same meaning 
is often attributed to many instances of the 1st pers. plur. in St. Paul; 
in his letters, however, there are usually several persons from whom, 
as is shown in the opening clause, the letter proceeds, and where this 
is not the case (Pastoral Epp. ; Romans, Ephesians), no such plurals 
are found: cp. e.g. Col. 1. 3 ev^apia-Tovfxev with E. 1. 15 Kayo» ... ou 
■n-avofxai ev^apicrToJv. In R. 1. 5 oY ov k\dßop.ev X^P iV Kai dTroaToXrjv 
k.t.X. while the language clearly applies to Paul himself (d7roo-T.), 
yet the words are not limited to him (\dptv), but the persons 
addressed, and indeed all Christians (cp. just before, 4 tov Kvpiov 
fjfjLQiv), are fellow-partakers in the x"/ 315 > so that eXaßov \dpiv would 
not have been suitable. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
however (an epistle, moreover, which has no introduction at all with 
the name of the writer), appears really to use the plur. and sing, 
without distinction, 5. 11, 6. 1, 3, 9, 11 etc., 13. 18 f. (plur. -sing.), 
22 f. (e7re<rreiAa, r/puov): and even in those Pauline Epistles, which are 
indited in the name of several persons, it is not always possible 
appropriately to refer the plural to these different persons, e.g. in 
2 C. 10. 11 ff. Similarly in 1 John 1. 4 ypatpopev is apparently 
identical in meaning with ypd<f>w (2. 1 and elsewhere). — Quite 
different is such a plural as we meet with in Mc. 4. 30 ttws 6p.oiu>- 
crcD/xev rrjv ßacnketav tov 6eov, where in a way that is not unknown 
to us the audience are represented as taking part in the deliberation. 

5. The pronoun of the 3rd person av-roO etc. is very frequently used 
with a disregard to formal agreement, where there is no noun of the 
same gender and number to which it may refer. The occurrence of 
the name of a place is sufficient ground for denoting the inhabitants 
of it by avTwi' : A. 8. 5 ^Aittttos KaTiXOiov eis rryv ttoXiv ttJs 2a^iapeias 
e/o/pucrcrei' avTots Tov xpio-rov, 16. 10, 20. 2, 2 C. 2. 12 f. etc.; in the 
same way K007JOS . . . avTols ibid. 5. 19, 7rav ... avrots (N*auTü)) Jo. 17. 2, 
see § 32, 1 (classical usage is similar). Further we have L. 23. 50 f. 
ßovXevr-)]? ... avr&v, i.e. the members of the high council (the refer- 
ence being understood from the preceding narrative) ; R. 2. 26 edv fj 
aKpoßvo-TLa to. 8iKa.uop.aTa tov vop.ov (f>v\d(rcn], i.e. 6 aKpoßvo-Ttav e'xwr, 
and therefore followed by avTov ; 1 P. 3. 14 tov (f>6ßov avrwv, the 
persecutors, who are understood from the sense and context, E. 5. 12 
VTT avTiov, those who belong to the o-kotos of verse 11, etc. To these 
must be added instances of constructio ad sensum (§ 31, 4) such as Mc. 
5. 41 xpaTrjo-as tt;s X et i°° s T0 ^ iratSiov Aeyet av-rfj, and on the Other 
hand cases where the subject referred to is obvious without further 
explanation, as in Jo. 20. 15 cu'töV, 1 Jo. 2. 12 avrov. 1 Cp. Buttmann, 
p. 92 f., Winer, § 22, 3. The relative pronoun is sometimes used in 
a similar way : G. 4. 19 Texvia p.ov, oi's, Jo. 6. 9 TraiSdpiov, os (v.l. o), 
Ph. 2. 15 ycveas o~ko Ata?, ev 01s ; also A. 15. 36 Kara 7rao-av tt6X.iv, kv 
ah, 2 P. 3. I SevTepav i"]8r) eTTicrToXip', kv afs {i.e. Tals Svcrlv (ttlo-t.) etc. 

6. The reflexive pronouns — kpavTov, creavTov, kavrov, with plural 

1 In Jo. 8. 44 (6 Trarrip) avrov (§ 47, 3) may be referred without difficulty 
through \pev<TTris to brav \a\rj rb \pev5os. 


for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons eavruv (% 13, l) 1 — have in the N.T. 
been to some extent displaced by the simple personal pronoun ; but 
a more noticeable fact is that they have had no share at all in the 
extended use which the personal pronouns acquired (supra 2). When 
the pronoun is employed as a direct complement to the verb, referring 
back to the subject, no other than the reflexive form is found in all (or 
nearly all) authors ; but if the pronoun is governed by a preposition, 
there are at least in Matthew numerous instances of the simple pro- 
noun being used ; finally, if a substantive governing the pronoun is 
interposed, and the pronoun has no emphasis at all (so that classical 
writers would omit it altogether, supra 2), then the reflexive form is 
never employed. Thus, in proportion as the number and the inde- 
pendent character of the words interposed between the pronoun and 
the subject becomes greater, the rarer becomes the use of the 
reflexive. (For instances of this in classical writers, Kühner ii. 2 
489, 494.) Direct complement: Mt. 6. 19 f. O^o-avpi^ere v^iv 
Öyyravpovs (instead of lavrois). 2 After a preposition : Mt. 5. 29 f., 
18. 8 f. ßäXe utto crov, 6. 2 pi) crakTricrrjs epurpocrOev crov, 11. 29 apart 
rbv £uyoV p,ov e<p' vpas, 13. 13 irapdXaße perd crov BDI (o-eauToufctKLM). 
The simple form is still more frequent where two pronouns are con- 
nected : 18. 15 e'Aey^ov ... pera^v crov kcu avrov, 17. 27 80s dvrl epov 
Kal crov. (In Semitic speech, where the reflexive is expressed by a 
periphrasis with ITDJ 3 , there can be no question of this kind of 
expression in these cases.) Yet even Mt. has et-n-ov ev eavrois 
(9. 3, 21), pepicrdeicra Ka6' eavrijs (12. 25), 15. 30 e^oi'Tcs ped' eavrwv, 
etc. — In the case of a possessive genitive attached to a substantive, 
the ms. evidence is often conflicting, not however in the case of 
epavrov or creavTov, but only with eavrov. The only instance with 
ipavrov is 1 C. 10. 33 to ipavrov crvpcpepov (of cr eavrov there is no 
example); then with eat'i-wi' = 2nd pers. we have H. 10. 25 r»)v 
€7rio-i>vaycoy7)v eavTwv, with eavrov, -T)s, -<3v between the art. and the 
noun (infra 7) we have Mc. 8. 35 v.l., L. 11. 21 ri)v eavrov av\-i)v (D. 
t. a. avrov), 13. 34 rijv eavrrjs vocrcndv (to, vocrcria avrrjs D), 14. 26 (eavrov 
stands after the noun in nB), 33 (avrov D al.), also 16. 8 els ri)v 
yevedv ri)v eavrdv ; frequent in the Pauline Epp., e.g. B. 4. 19, 5. 8, 
16. 4, 18. On the other hand, the simple pronoun is also used e.g. 
in A. 28. 19 rov Wvovs pov, ibid. ß text ri)v ypvx>)v pov, G. 1. 14 pov 

1 The corresponding use of eavrov for (e/xavrov or) aeavrov, which is far from 
being established for classical prose, rests even in the N.T. on doubtful 
authority : Jo. 18. 34 d<p' eavrov av rovro Xeyeis, but airb aeavrov NBC*L : 
R. 13. 9 = G. 5. 14 O.T. d>s eavrov read by FGLP and FGLN*P in the respective 
passages; cp. Herrn. Vis. iv. 1. 5 rjp^dßr]v \e~yeiv ev eavr^ (H* as; efiavr. N c ), 
Sim. ii. 1 ri crv ev eavrw fr/refs (K is wanting), ix. 2. 5 : Clem. Horn. xiv. 10, 
xvii. 18 for epavrov. Buttm. 99. On vfiQv avrwv 1 C. 5. 13 vide infra 10. 

2 We also have ?5o£ a euavry with inf. in A. 26. 9, whereas classical Greek in 
a case like this where no stress is laid on the reflexive, says 8okQ (aoi. On 
eavrov as subj. of the accus, and inf. see § 72, 2 ; Buttm. 236 (airbv for eavrov 
A. 25. 21). 

3 Hence in translating from Semitic the reflexive is interchangeable with rty 
\pvxhv avrov : cp. L. 9. 25 eavrov Se diro\eo-as t) fyßiudeis with 24 diro\4o-rj rr/v \p. 
avrov. Cp. Winer § 22, 7 note 3. 

l68 PERSONAL, REFLEXIVE AND [§ 48. 6-7. 

bis, 16 tov vlbv avTov, etc.; on ep.6s ct-os, vide infra 7. — Other instances 
of reflexives: Mt. 12. 45 -7rovi]porepa eavrov (DE* avrov), Mc. 5. 26 
rot 7ra/3' eavrijs (airri/s ABL), L. 24. 27 Ta 7rept eaurou (auTOi! DEL al.); 
on the Other hand, Ph. 2. 23 d(pi8u> rd irepl ep.e, R. 1. 15 to Kar' ep.e 
7rp6dv{xo<; sc. eiju (§ 42, 2). A loose but intelligible use is 1 C. 10. 29 
Aeyw ouyj t))v lam-ou. — The mode of strengthening the reflexive by 
means of uutos, frequent in Attic, appears in a few instances (from 
the literary language) : 2 C. 10. 12 avrol ev eavrols eavrovs p.erpovvres, 
1. 9, A. 5. 36 D KareXvOr] avrbs 6Y kavrov (avrov D) ; but in Jo. 9. 2 1 
the pronouns must not be connected : avrbs (he himself) irepl kavrov 
AaA?/<ra (cp. R. 8. 23). — On kavrdv for dAA//Awv, vide infra 9. 

7. The possessives e/xos, o-os, rjp.erepos, vp.erepos are employed in 
classical Greek to represent the emphasized genitives ep.ov, o-ov etc., 
whereas if there is no emphasis on the pronoun possession is denoted 
by the genitives p.ov, o-ov, f]p,£)v, vp.wv ; the position of the latter, as 
of the corresponding avrov, -rjs, -<3v of the 3rd pers., if the subst. 
takes the article, is after the substantive (and the article is not 
repeated), or even before the article, as in Mt. 8. 8 Iva p-ov wb ttjv 
<rreyy]v, 1 Th. 3. 10 I8elv vp.iov to tt poo- wit ov, 13 crri]pi£at i'/xwv ras Kap- 
8ias, or lastly, if the subst. has an attribute before it, the position of 
the pronoun is after the attribute: 2 C 4. 16 6 e£w rjp.wv dvOpwiros, 
Mt. 27. 60 ev tw Kaivuj avrov Livrjp.euo, 1 P. 1. 3, 2. 9, 5. 10 etc. (Butt- 
mann, p. 101). On the other hand, the possessives take the position 
of the attributes, as in classical Greek is the case with emphasized 
genitives like ep.avrov, creavrov, eavrov, rovrov, eKelvov ( = his). The 
noticeable point in the N.T. is that while e/xou and o-ov are not used 
as possessives (except in connection with another gen., R. 16". 13 
avrov Kal epuov, 1. 12), the emphatic vjiwv (in the Pauline Epp., Butt- 
mann 102) undoubtedly is so used (in the position of the attribute; 
cp. Soph. Oed. R. 1458 7} piev i)p,Q>v p,oipa), and hence it happens that 
the words t)p.erepos and vp,erepos are by no means represented in all 
the N.T. writings (there are not ten instances of each, none at all e.g. 
in Mt., Mc.) : 1 0. 16. 18 to irvevpa Kal to vp.iov, 2 C. 1. 6 iVep rrjs 
i'yxiov 7rapa/<A.?;cr€cos (object, gen., which however may equally well be 
expressed by the possessive : R. 11. 31 tw v/ierepw eXkei, 1 C. 11. 24-njv 
(piijv dvdp,vr]o-Lv, W. § 22, 7, cp. for class, exx. Kühner ii.' 2 486, note 11), 
2 C. 9. 2 to vp.wv (v.l. e£ iyx.) £rjXos, 1 C. 16. 17 to vfmv (vp.erepov 
BCD al.) vo-rkpi)ixa, 1 Th. 3. 7, Clem. Horn. x. 15 tw vpSov (reflex.) 
Trapa8dyp,art. Still the possessive is also found in another position 
in t)/j.(ov ydp to 7ro\t,T€vp.a Ph. 3. 20 (stronger emphasis, for which rb 
yap rjp,. tto\. was not sufficient), and there are similar exceptions in 
the case of reflexive genitives : rrjv i-n-Lo-w ay wyijv kavriov H. 10. 25 
(i.e. vp.(ov avrtov), A. 21. n Sr/cras eavrov rovs 7ro8as (there is a wrong 
reading avrov, which would refer to Paul), G. 6. 4 to epyov kavrov, 
ibid. 8 eis TY)V o-dpKa eavrov (avrov D*FG, cp. the V.l. in E. 4. 16, 
Mt. 21. 8, 23. 37 ; Herrn. Vis. iii. 11. 3 kavrwv [2nd pers.] rds p.epip.vas, 
Sim. iv. 5 tov Kvpiov kavriov [3rd pers.], v. 4. 3 ; in general, according 
to what has been said above [see 6] avrov deserves the preference). 
Emphatic av-rov = his is found in the position of the attribute : 
Tit. 3. 5 Kara to avrov eXeos (opposed to preceding yp-eis ; rb eX. aiVoij 

§ 48. 7-9.] POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 16g 

D*EFG), H. 2. 4 K<XTa tt)v avTov ßkXqo-LV, R. 11. u tw cutcov irapa- 
irriofiaTi rj <TU)Ti]pia rots Wveaiv 3. 24, 1 Th. 2. 19, Ja. 1. 18 (v.l. kavTov); 
cp. supra 1 (in R. 3. 25 eV tw avrou aipn the gen. is from avros 
'self'). 1 For this classical Greek uses eK-etVou (which may even have 
reflexive force, Kühner ii. 2 559, 12); the latter appears in the correct 
position (that of the attribute), in Jo. 5. 47, 2 C. 8. 9, 14, 2 Tim. 
2. 26 etc. (exception R. 6. 21 to TeAos eKeivuv) ; cp. with tovtov etc., 
R. 11. 30, 2 P. 1. 15 (but contrary to rule are A. 13. 23 tovtov 6 #ebs 
airo tov o-irepfxaTos, cp. on Ph. 3. 20 above; Ap. 18. 15 ot efJLiropoL 
tovt<jjv; H. 13. 11). — 'Ejaos is very frecpient in John, not very frecpient 
in the remaining writers (o-os besides its use in Gospels and Acts 
occurs only three times in Paul) ; e/zds (like o-ds) is also used reflex- 
ively for kp.avTov (o-eavrov), Philem. 19, Mt. 7. 3 (3 Jo. 4), Herrn. 
Sim. i. 11 to o-bv epyov kpydgov (also occasionally in class. Greek, 
Kühner ii. 2 494a). — The possessives are also used predicatively 
(without an art.) : Mt. 20. 23 = Mc. 10. 40 ovk Zcrriv kpuv tovto Sovvai 
(for which we have in the plur. vfuav ottiv 1 C. 3. 21 f., cp. supra 
§ 35, 2) ; with a subst. inserted kpbv ßpwp.d Icttlv ha k.t.X. Jo. 4. 34, 
13. 35; under other circumstances also the art. may be dropped: 
Ph. 3. 9 /x?) e'xwv e/xr)v SLKaioorvvrjv ('a righteousness of my own') 
tt]v ex v6p.ov (cp. § 47, 6), as with t'Sios, infra 8, and with caw-ov 

L. 19. 13 SeKa Soi'Aovs eavTOV (' of his'). 

8. A common possessive pronoun is KSios, which in classical Greek 
is opposed to koivo's or 8->]p.6o-io<s, while in modern Greek the new 
possessive 6 eStKos p.ov, o-ov etc. has been fully developed (with the 
N.T. and LXX. use agree also Philo, Josephus, Plutarch etc., 
W. Schmidt Jos. elocut. 369). It is opposed to koivos A. 4. 32 
(H. 7. 27); or means 'peculiar,' 'corresponding to the particular 
condition' of a person or thing, 1 C. 3. 8, 7. 7 etc. (class.); but 
generally means simply ' own,' = kavTov etc. (like class, oikcios) : 

Jo. 1. II ets 7a 181a rjXOiv, kclI ot 18101 gu'tw ov TrapeXaßov, 42 €vpLO-K€t 
tw aSeA^bv tov i'Stoi' Styuwra, Mt. 22. 5 et§ tov lSiov dypdv (without 
emphasis = €t's r. d. avTov), 25. 14; with v.l. eavTov L. 2. 3. It is 
joined with the gen. avTov etc. (a use which in itself is classical) in 
Mc. 15. 20 (v.l. without uvtov, D also omits t'Sta) A. 1. 19, 24. 23, 
Tit. 1. 12, 2 P. 3. 3, 16. Kerr' ISiav is frequent = class, ko.6' kavTov 
'by Himself,' Mt. 14. 13 etc.; 181a. eKcto-Tw 1 C. 12. 11 is classical. — It 
is not surprising that the article is occasionally dropped, cp. supra 7 
ad fin. (1 C. 15. 38, a v.l. inserts to; Tit. 1. 12) ; in Tit. 2. 9 8ovXovs 
Seo-iroTais tStots vtt 'ot do- crea 6 'at there is a kind of assimilation to the 
anarthrous SovAoi's (somewhat as in H. 12. 7, § 46, 7); 2 P. 2. 16 
eXey£tv I8ias Trapavojuas is due to Hebrew usage like Trap. avTov 
(§ 46, 9). — On the periphrasis for the possess, gen. with «am see 
§ 42, 2. 

9. 'Eai'Twv is found (as previously in classical Greek) for the 

1 In H. 7. 18 Siä rb aiTrjs äcröeves Kai avu<pe\es there is no emphasis on the 
pronoun, but here there is no substantive : tt\v clvttjs do-deveiav would scarcely 
be written. (Still in Herrn. Mand. vi. 2. 2 we have rds avrwv eVep7e:'a? without 
emphasis, cp. Clem. Horn. xiv. 7, 10.) 

I yo POSSESSI VE PRO NO UNS. [§ 48. 9-1 0. § 49. 1 -2. 

reciprocal 6X\r\\uv in 1 C. G. 7, Col. 3. 13, 16, etc., and often in con- 
junction with it for the sake of variety : L. 23. 12 dXXyXw ... 717)09 
eavToi's with v.l. in nBLT 7rpbs avrovs, a use of the simple pronoun 
which here appears to be inadmissible. The individual persons are 
kept separate in dAAos 7rpbs dXXov A. 2. 12 = 7rpbs dWrjXovs ; cp. eis 
■zw era for dXXyXovs (Semitic) § 45, 2. 

10. Awtos 'self has its classical usages (usually followed by an 
article, which however does not belong to avros, and is therefore 
sometimes omitted, as in airrbs 'lyo-ovs Jo. 2. 24, according to 
§ 46, 10) ; it is naturally found also in connection with the personal 
pronoun, where it is to be sharply distinguished from the reflexive : 
<"£ v/jlwv avrwv A. 20. 30, like airrbs «yw, avrol lyzeis (in the 3rd pers. 
it is of course not repeated : iVa avrohs £>/Aovre G. 4. 17, 'the men 
themselves'); even in 1 C. 5. 13 e^dpaTe tov irovypbv d£ vfitav avrw 
the words v. a. are not reflexive, although this quotation is taken 
from Deut. 17. 7 i^aptis tov ir. e£ v/iwv avTwi', where eaiTiov could not 
be used because of the singular e^apels. — For avTos ovtos (eV-eü/os) 
Luke uses airrds in the phrases Iv awrjj rrj o>pu, rjp-epa L. 12. 12, 13. 31, 
20. 19, A. 22. 13 etc., ev a. tw Katpoi L. 13. I (cp. e£ avT^s, § 44, 1) ; 
SO also Iv avrrj rrj oIkio. 10. 7. 


1. The demonstrative pronouns of the N.T. are : ovtos, «k€ivos, and 
cuptös, which is beginning to be so used, see § 48, 1, remnants of 
6, Tj, to, § 46, 1-3, remnants also of 88€, § 12, 2, which is not even 
used correctly in all cases (rdSe Aeyei to introduce some information 
is correct in A. 21. 11, Ap. 2. 1 etc.), just because it belonged to the 
language of literature and not to the living language : L. 10. 39 ko.1 
T/ySe yv d8eX(f>y k.t.X. instead of tovtq (Ja. 4. 13 TropevcropLeOa els tt)V- 
8e rrjv ttoXiv appears to mean 'such and such a city,' Attic tt/v koI 
t?)v, as in Plat. Leg. 4. 7 2 1 B ry koI ry drip-iy 1 • the passage in 
James is followed by 15 iroiyo-opev tovto ?) eKelvo with the same 
meaning). Toido-Se for ToiavTys (correctly introducing some informa- 
tion following) only occurs in 2 P. 1. 17. 

2. The uses of oStos and «kcivos are quite clearly distinguished. 
Ovtos refers to persons or things actually present : Mt. 3. 1 7 ovtos 
Zcttlv 6 vlos p.ov etc.; to persons or things mentioned, =one who con- 
tinues to be the subject of conversation, as e.g. in Mt. 3. 3 ovtos 
(John, verse 1 f.) ydp ko-nv 6 pyOels k.t.X., especially used after a 
preliminary description of a person to introduce what has to be 
narrated of him, Mt. 27. 57 f. dvdpwn-os ttXov(tlos curb 'ApipaOaias ... 
ovtos Trpoo-eXOiov k.t.X., L. 23. 50 ft*., Ja. 3. 2, 4. 47, A. 1. 18 ovtos 
/xei> ovv k.t.X., etc.; somewhat different is Kai ovtos in Luke in the 
continuation of a description, L. 2. 25 f. ko.1 iSov dvdpioTros yv...<T, 
f'h'o/JLa ^vp&av, ko.1 6 a. ovtos Slkcuos k.t.X., cp. 17, 7. 12, 8. 41 (with a 
wrong reading cu'tos, see § 48, 1), 19. 2 (the same v.l.; only D has 

1 With this is rightly compared r-qvSe ttjv ijfiipav in Plut. Qu. con vi v. i. G. 1. 


ovtos); cp. also Kai TrjSe (sup. 1), 10. 39. Slight ambiguities (where 
several substantives precede) must be cleared up by the sense : 

A. 8. 26 avrq ecrru' epr/fios, referring to 17 680s, not to Ta^a ; L. 16. 1 
av6p(DTro<; Tis ?)v 7Ts\ov(rios os *?X. ev oLKovofiov, Kal ovtos (referring to 
oik.) 8ußXi)dri airrw (to dvd. -rk.). It very commonly stands in the 
apodosis, referring back to the protasis : Mt. 10. 22 6 Se v-rop-eivas eis 
TeAos, ovtos criodijo-CTai, R. 7. 15 ov yap o OeXto, tovto Trpdcrcrw, dXX' 6 
pio-w, tovto 7ro6(o ; but tovto is also found in the preceding principal 
clause, as a preliminary to a subordinate clause with 6Vt, Iva etc. ; 

1 Tim. 1. 9 £l<5ü)S TOVTO, OTl K.T.A., 1 Jo. 2. 3 kv TOITÜ) yiVlli(TKOp.eV..., 

Idv k.t.A.; also before an infinitive or substantive, 2 ( C. 2. 1 
eKpiva epavTip tovto, to p.f) irdXiv ... eX9eiv, 2 C. 13. 9 tovto Kal 
ev-^opeOa, T-qv vp.wv KaTapTiaii'. St. Paul frequently also has 
cujto tovto, just this (and nothing else), E. 9. 17 O.T., 13. 6, 
Ph. 1. 6 7re7roi0tüs avTo tovto (with reference to their endurance 
already emphasized in verse 5), also 2 P. 1. 5 ; an adverbial use 
(like t'l) is tovto avTo just for this reason 2 C. 2. 3, § 34, 7. 1 Another 
adverbial use is tovto plv ... tovto 8e on the one hand ...on the 
other hand, both ... and H. 10. t,^ (Attic; literary language). We 
further have Kal tovto idque ' and indeed ' 1 C. G. 8 (k. TavTa CD b ), 
8 (Tairra L), R. 13. 11, E. 2. 8 (Att. Kai TavYa, Kühner ii.' 2 791); on 
Kal TavTa with part, 'although' H. 11. 12 etc. see § 74, 2. — Ovtos 
appears to be often used in a contemptuous way (like Latin iste) of 
a person who is present: L. 15. 30 6 vtos crov ovtos, 18. n ovtos o 
TeAwi^s, A. 17. 18. — On ov /«Ta. 7roAAas Tavras 17/xepas A. 1. 5 see 
§ 42, 3. 

3. The much rarer word ««ivos (most frequent, comparatively 
speaking, in St. John) may be used to denote persons who are 
absent, and are regarded in that light : v/xets - kKdvoi are opposed in 
Mt. 13. II, Jo. 5. 39, A. 3. 13, 2 C. 8. 14, ?//xe6S (eya>)-eK. in Jo. 3. 
28, 30, 1 C 9. 25, 10. 11, 15. 11 ; of course the conversation must 
have turned on the persons indicated, to make the pronoun in- 
telligible at all. 2 It is never used in the N.T. in connection with, 
or in opposition to, ovtos (Buttm. p. 91) ; but see Herrn. Mand. iii. 5 
(KeLva (the past) -TavYa (the present). Frequently in the N.T. 
kKHv-q rj i)p,epa is used of the last day, Mt. 7. 22, 2 Th. 1. 10. But 
it is especially used in narrative (even imaginary narrative) about 
something that has been previously mentioned, and that which is 
connected therewith. When thus used, it is distinguished from 
ovtos, which refers to something which is still under immediate 
consideration. Thus confusion between the two pronouns is not 
often possible. Mt. 3. 1 kv Be tuls r//i.epats eV-etvais in the transition 
to a fresh narrative, cp. Mc. 1. 9, 8. 1, L. 2. 1 ; but Luke also uses 
TavVais in this phrase, 1. 39, 6. 12 (D eicavats), A. 1. 15, 6. 1 (v.l. 

1 2 P. 1. 5 Kai avTo 8e tovto (v.l. k. a. tovto 8e) awovdrjv Ttacrav ira.peio~eueyKa.vTes 
might be a corruption of KaT' cu'tö 5£ tovto. 

- It is used contemptuously or invidiously of an absent person in Jo. 9. 28, 
cp. ovtos, sup. 2 ; in A. 5. 28 D has tov avdp. eiceivov for r. d. tovtov of the other 
mss. (the latter is due to evi Tip övö/xaTi tovtu in the same verse). 

1 7 2 DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. [§ 49. 3-4. §50. 1. 

exetv.), 11. 27 (B avTcus, cp. § 48, 1) : Mt. 7. 25, 27 tjj ot/a'p ki<eiv>j 
(referring to 24 and 26 ; other subjects, namely the rain etc., have 
intervened), 8. 28 81a. t?}s oSov eK-eivj/s (where the possessed persons 
dwelt; the road itself has not previously been mentioned), 9. 22 dnb 
TT/s üpas eKeivqs (when these words were spoken), 26, 31, 13. 44 rbv 
dypbv tKilvov (referring to tw dypw ibid., but again there has been 
interruption caused by other subjects intervening). 1 — In the apodosis 

(Cp. OL'TOS) : Mc 7. 20 TO tK TOV dvdpiOTTOV tKTTOp(X>6p.ei'Ol', €K€6VO (that 

other thing) kolvol rbv dvdpwirov, Jo. 10. 1 (Ik. opposed to the speaker), 
similarly It. 14. 14, 2 C. 10. 18 ; with weakened force and indefinite 
reference ('he') Jo. 14. 216 k\wv tus e'rroAas p.ov ..., inelvos kcrriv 6 
dyairuiv p,e, cp. 6. 57, 2 C. 10. 18, Herrn. Mand. vii. 5, etc.; even 
with reference to the speaker in Jo. 9. 37. It is not often followed 
by the word or clause referred to : Mt. 24. 23 e/ceivo (that other 
thing, see 42) 8e yLvioo-Kerc ort (R. 14. 15 iiceivov ... virkp ov ojDposed 
to <rw), Jo. 13. 26 'he,' cp. supra. Its meaning is also weakened to 
'he' ('they') in Jo. 10. 6 tou'ti/v t?)v Trapoifxiav eiVev cu'tois ö 'b/cr., 
€K€ivoi 8k (for which ol 8k, avrol 8k are synonyms, §§ 46, 3 ; 48, 1), 
and so frequently in John in unbroken connection with the first 
mention, G. 9. 11, 25, 36 ; similarly ' Mc' 16. 10 ff. 2 

4. The substantive that is connected with outo? or eK-eivos takes 
the article as in classical Greek ; it is only necessary to consider 
whether the words are really to be connected, or whether the sub- 
stantive or the pronoun forms part of the predicate : Jo. 2. 1 1 
TavTi]v (obj.) i-rroitjcrev ap\V v ™ v o"^ciwi', L. 2. 1 aim; (subj.) <x7ro- 
ypacprf Trpwrr] (on the agreement in gender see § 31, 2), 
A. 24. 21 /xiou Tai'r?;s <f>iov?j$ //•? eK€Kpa£a ori = r) <pu>vi] fj kykvero Tyt'/zia 
avrrj (predic.) — The position of the pronoun, either before the article 
or after the substantive, is quite optional : outo? (e/cavos) 6 dvOpwTros 
Or 6 u. oStos (eKeti'Os). 


1. The relative of definite reference 8s (by the ancients called 
dpdpov iVoTUKTt/v-öV, § 46, 1) and that of indefinite reference Öo-ns are 
no longer regularly distinguished in the N.T. ; and with this is 
connected the fact that the latter is almost entirely limited to the 
nominative (§ 13, 3), although in this case it is used by nearly all 

1 See also Jo. 1. 6 ff. eyfrero avdpu-rros ... 'Iwduris' ovtos (vide sup. 2) JjXOev e<s 
ßaprvpiav, — 'iva Trdvres iriarcvauiGiv bC avrov' ovk f]v ckcivos to (pws (the discourse 
passes from John to Jesus) ; 7. 45 yXdov °?' v ol inrriperai wpbs tovs dpxtepe'ts, kox 
(Ittov clvtois eKetvoi (tliose who were at a distance from the scene of action, and 
were previously mentioned in verse 32). 

'-'The Johannine use of iice?vos is exhaustively discussed by Steitz and 
A. Buttmann in Stud. u. Kr. 1859, 497: I860, 505: 1861, 267 : see also Zeit- 
schrift f. w. Th. 1862, 204 for the passage 19. 35 teal (ksivos oldev k.t.X. (i.e. the 
narrator, whose personality, however, is not prominently put forward, unless 
with Zahn we refer iiceipos to Christ). Nonnus (see his paraphrase) read K&icelvov 
oi8ap.ei> otl dXrjdLvri 7? fxaprvpia icrlv (yevero 5i k.t.X.; the Latin codex e omits 
the verse, and has (like Nonnus) eyivero Si in v. 36. 

§50.1-2.] RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 173 

writers (least of all by John). A similar case is that of 00-05, -which, 
except in Hebrews, is used only in the nominative and accusative. 
Mt. uses 6'o-tis correctly in general statements, 5. 39, 41, 10. ■$■$ etc., 
but also os 10. 14, 23. 16, 18; esp. 71-as 6'o-tis 7. 24, 10. 32, 19. 29; 
but 7ras 6's occurs in L. 14. 33, A. 2. 21 O.T., G. 3. 10 O.T., 7ravri cS 
L. 12. 48 ; Mt. also uses this phrase where a subst. is inserted, 
12. 36 Trav prjfj.a dpybv o, 15. 1 3 7rao~a (favreia i)v (7racra ^v\i] t/tis 
A. 3. 23 O.T.). "Oo-Tis is also correctly used in connection with a 
subst. of indefinite reference : Mt. 7. 15 twv \fev8oTrpo<pi]Twv oiVives 
(description follows), 24 dvSpl $>povip.w 6'o-tis etc. (but Lc. uses os : 
6. 48 dvdpwTro) os, 49 oiKt'av y): and to denote a definite person in a 
case where the relative sentence expresses the general quality, 
Jo. 8. 53 'Aßpadp., 6'o-tis d-rreOavev (who was a man who died), 
A. 7. 53 omves iXdßere k.t.A. (people who) ; but these limits are 
often exceeded esp. by Luke, and on-ives, t/tis are used = o'l, tj : 
Uirpov Kai 'lioavr/v, oiVives A. 8. 15, rrjv TrvXrjv r/ns 12. 10, 7r6X.iv 
ilaviS, rj-rts L. 2. 4 (particularly where a participle follows, and the 
meaning of 01, ■>] would not have been clear, A. 8. 15, 17. 10 oiVtves 
jrapayevo/ievot); Ap. 12. 13 tt)v yvvaixa ijrts eVeKev t6v dpcreva. This 
use of 6'o-tis for ös is very old in Ionic Greek, Kühner Gr. ii. 2 906 
(Herod, ii. 99 7roAiv ijus vvv Me/z^)is KaAen-ai). In the Pauline 
Epistles this use cannot be established, since in R. 16. 3 ff. 6's and 
6'o-tis are alternately used, according as a mere statement of fact is 
made (6's), or a characteristic is given (7 oiVtves elaiv kTrio-rip.oi ev toi? 
ä/roo-ToAois, ot Kal Trpb ip.ov yeyovav kv X/dicttw); also in G. 4. 24, 26 
rjris = rj Toiavri-j, cp. 1 C. 3. 17, Ph. 1. 28, 1 Tim. 3. 15. — As an 
instance of 6's for 6'o-tis one may further note ot'6Yts (ov) ... 6s (for 
6'o-tis) 01', § 75, 6. — Sorrjp has been given up, § 13, 3. 

2. The äp0pov vTroTaKTiKdv, os, i\, o justifies this appellation chiefly in 
the fact that, like the article (a. irpoTaKTiKÖv) which follows a sub- 
stantive and introduces a further definition, its case is assimilated 
to that of the substantive, even though in conformity with the 
relative sentence it should have had another case, which is generally 
the accusative (Attraction or Assimilation of the relative). 1 In 
this peculiarity of Greek the N.T. (like the lxx.) is entirely in 
agreement with the classical language. Exceptions occur (as in 
classical Greek, Thuc. ii. 70. 5) where the relative clause is more 
sharply divided from the rest of the sentence (through the insertion 
of other defining words with the noun and through the importance 
of the contents of the relative sentence) : H. 8. 2 t?}s o-k^vt/s ttjs 
äXti9ivi}s, ^v €7r?7£ev 6 Kvpios, ovk av$po>7ros ; but in other passages there 
is always a v.l., Mc. 13. 19 dir' dpxy? ktio-cws, fy (rjs AC 2 al., om. i)v 
€KT. 6 6. D) tKTurev 6 6eos, Jo. 2. 22 and 4. 50 tw Aoyw ov (cjj Az\X 
al., DA al.), 4. 5 x w P l 'ov o (ov C*D al.), 7. 39 (ov nDG al.), Ap. 1. 20 
(wv B); Tit. 3. 5 ovk ££ epycov tow ev 8lko.ioo-vvij, a (&v C b D c al. ) 
e7roLijo~ap.ev y/zets is an instance of the case above-mentioned of 
separation through the insertion of defining words. (On A. 8. 32 f. 
see the author's commentary on that passage.) On the other hand 

1 "0<TTts, in N.T. as in classical Greek, is never assimilated. 

I7 4 RELATIVE AND [§ 50. 2-3. 

it is not only the so-called accusative of the inner object (§ 34, 3) 
which is capable of assimilation (E. 4. 1 tv}s kA?/o-۟>s ^s ti<\ijdr)Te, 
A. 24. 21, 26. 16, Jd. 15), but occasionally the dative is assimilated 
as well : A. 1. 22 d^pi tt/s ?}pepas fjfi dveAi/p^Ö»/ (cp. L. 1. 20 D, LXX. 
Lev. 23. 15, Bar. 1. 15), B. 4. 17 Ko.Tkva.vri ov eVto-Teixrev deov, i.e. K. 
to? 6. (5 er. (see below on the attraction of the substantive into the 
relative clause). In addition to this, the preposition which should 
be repeated before the relative may be omitted (class.): A. 1. 21 
ev 7ravTt XP° vt ? ( sc - * v ) 'i'> 13. 2 ets to epyov (sc. eis) o, 39 dirb irdvTiuv 
(sc. d<j>') &v, Herrn. Sim. ix. 7. 3 pera ttuvtiov (sc. fj-eO) Sv (but in the 
case of a sharper division of the relative clause, the preposition is 
repeated : A. 7. 4 ets t>/v yrjv t<xvtt)v, ets rjv, 20. 18 onrb -irpwTt]s ?;/xepas, 
d(f>' >Js, Jo. 4. 53 (ev) «k€ivt) TT) üpa., h y). It is readily intelligible 
that the Greek relative includes our demonstrative 'he' or 'that'; 
it is therefore used by assimilation in the case which would belong 
to the demonstrative : L. 9. 36 ov8ev J)v = tovtwv a, Jo. 7. 31 7rAetova 

wv (do.), 17. 9 iT€pl £>v = Trepl TovTiDV ovs ; also dvO' WV = aVTl TOVTWV 

on, £<f>' (5 = eVt tovtu> on, Stört = Sta tovto oTL • cp. adverbs of place 
§ 76, 4. More noticeable is the occasional attraction of the noun 
into the relative clause, in which case the article belonging to the 
noun, being incompatible with the dpOp. v-kot., must be left out, 
while the noun itself is now assimilated to the case of the relative ; 
of course even where there is no assimilation of the relative, a 
similar attraction of the noun into the relative clause, with the case 
of the relative, may take place (so in classical Greek, Kühner ii. 2 
922: e.g. S) dvSpl 7ravTes ei>vot rjo-av, direOavtv). But the noun is not 
placed immediately after the relative, except in the case of fjfikpa: 
L. 1. 20 öi\pt i/S i/pipas yevrjrai Tavra,=d. rrjs rjp. (ev) y cp. supra, 
A. 1. 1, Mt. 24. 38 (same phrase). 1 On the other hand: L. 19. 37 
7racrwv £>v etdov Svvdptcov, 3. 19 7rept TrdvTiav wv ewoirjo'ev Trovrjpwv 6 
'HpwS^s (toi' 770V. £>v «*), cp. A. 25. 18-, and with no assimilation of 
the relative : L. 24. 1 <pkpovcrai d i'] dpwpara, Jo. 6. 14 o 
hroirfa-ev a-^pdov. The way in which the following exx. should be 
resolved is ambiguous: L. 1. 4 -n-epl £>v Ka-tjxyOrjs \6ywv, = either 
ircpl twv A. ol)s or twv Adywv irepl 5>v (in view of passages like 
A. 18. 25, 20. 24, 25. 26 the first is probably correct); B. 6. 17 
i-i/KovcraTe ets ov TrapeSo^/re tvttov StSay^s, probably tw tvttio ets ov ; 
with omission of a preposition A. 21. 16 (but not D) ayovTes Trap' a» 
^evto-öwpev MvdVtovi = 7rpos Mvao-(ova, tva £ev. 7rap' olvtm (§ 65, 8). 

3. If the noun is not attracted into the relative clause but stands 
in front of it, it is still occasionally assimilated to the case of the 
relative, a practice of which instances appear in classical authors 
(attractio inversa. Kühner ii.' 2 918, 4): 1 C. 10. 16 tov ap-rov ov 
/cAwpev, ov\l KOivcovta . . . eo~Ttv • A. 10. 36 tov Adyov ov...ovto<; «tti 

1 The regular phrase is ev ijfi. y Mt. 24. 50, L. 1. 25 (plur. ), 12. 46, without 
the art., which is occasionally omitted in Hebrew before ~ 1 h'^, infra 3 ; without 
eV L. 17. 29 f. 3 wtpQ (i n 30 D reads iv rjj i),u.. - y äiroKa\v<pdr)). 'Up. is separ- 
ated from the rel. in Herrn. Maud. iv. 4. 3 d<p' 17s poi irapeSoO-ris ijpepas. 

2 2 C. 10. 13 Kara tö pdrpov tov ko.v6vos, ov f/j.^pio~€v r)ptv 6 Oebs fiirpov = Tov perpov 
ov, although in this case the appositional clause has been very loosely annexed. 


TravTwv (Kt'ptos should be removed) 1 , Herrn. Sim. ix. 13. 3, L. 12. 48 

TravTi o) eSodrj ttoXv, ttoXv ^i]Ti](rov(Tii> Trap' avTov (in sentences of this 

kind the nominative is elsewhere used with anacoluthon, see § 79), 
Mt. 21. 42 tov XWov ov k.t.X. O.T.; peculiar is L. 1. 73 opuov ov 
oi/xoo-61' instead of tov öpnov ov (not a case of 'protasis,' but a supple- 
mentary amplification ; the passage is strongly Hebraic, § 46, 9 ; 
Hebr. ni235t Dip» Ges.-K. § 130, 3).— Attraction with a relative 
adverb : Mt. 25. 24 o-vvayea o6ev ( = eKeidev öVon) ov StecrKopjrtcras, cp. 
Kühner ii. 2 915, note 6. 

4. One piece of careless writing, which was specially suggested by 
Semitic usage (Hebr. v *">12?5t ; Aramaic has similar expressions with 
1), though it is not quite unknown to the classical language 2 , is the 
pleonastic use of the personal pronoun after the relative. Mc. 7. 25 
yvvt], Tys et^ev to dvydrpiov aiVvys (a. om. fc*D) 7rvevp.a dxadapTov, 1. 7 
= L. 3. 1 6 ov . . . avrov, Ap. 7. 2 oh £86dr] avrois, 9, 3. 8, 1 3. 8, 20. 8, 
Clem. Cor. i. 21. 9 ov 17 irvor) avTov (frequent in LXX., Winer, § 22, 4); 
with these exx. the following are quite in keeping: Ap. 12. 6, 14 
Ö7TOV . . . €K€t (D123 ""11235$), 17. 9 ottov . . . Itt olvtwv, Mc. 13. 19 01a ov 
yeyovev roiavri] (9. 3 ola ... ov Svvarau ovtws AevKavai) : in Gr. 3. I iv 
vp.iv after oh is merely a v.l.; but in 2. 10 o mal eo-irovSao-a avrb 
TovTo rroirjo-ai there is a reason for the expression, since aiVb in this 
sense ('just') cannot be joined to the relative, and therefore required 
to be supplemented by tovto. 3 — Another quite different negligent 
usage, which is also unobjectionable in the classical language, is the 
linking on of a further subordinate clause to a relative clause by 
means of Kal ... avrov: 1 C. 8. 6 e£ ov to. Trdvra koX i)peh eis avrov 
(a second ex. in the same verse), Ap. 17. 2, 2 P. 2. 3 (Kühner ii. 2 936). 

5. Relatives and interrogatives become confused in Greek as in 
other languages. The relatives in particular, and as is only natural 
the indefinite So-ns especially (but also os, where it can conveniently 
be so used), are frequently employed in the classical language in 
indirect questions (beside the interrogatives), a usage which, how- 
ever, is wanting in the N.T. (in A. 9. 6 the reading of «ABC on for 
ri must be rejected in view of the general practice elsewhere); 
Ö7roios alone is employed as an indirect interrogative : 1 C. 3. 13, 
G. 2. 6 (ottoioi TTore), 1 Th. 1. 9, Ja. 1. 24 (elsewhere expressed by 
71-otos), cp. oVws L. 24. 20. The reverse use of the interrogative rls 
instead of the relative Öo-ns is Alexandrian (and dialectical), as e.g. 
in a saying of Ptolemy Euergetes ap. Athen, x. 438 fin. rivi 17 rv\-q 
oYSüxrt, Xaßena* In the N.T. we have A. 13. 25 tivgi p.e vTrovoeire 
civai, ovk ei/u eyw, 5 cp. Mc. 14. 36 ov ri eyto deXu, dXXa ri o~v (ov)( 
b — dXX' o D), L. 1 7. 8 kroLjiaa-ov Tt Sei7rv?;crto, Ja. 3. 13 Tis o-o<pb<z Kai 

1 See the author's edition of the Acts, and above § 35, 2. 

2 Cp. Kühner ii. 2 937 (Hypereides Euxen. § 3 &v ... toOtwv). 

3 So (Kühner loc. cit. note 2) 8s ... devrepos ofrros. 

4 Cp. 0. Immisch Lpz. Stud. 1887, 309 ff. 

5 [W. H. txt. reads rt efi£ vwovoure eivai ; 01!« el/xi iyd>. Tr.] 

l 7 ß RELATIVE AND [§ SO. 5-6. 

(TTLa-Tt'ifxwv iv i>fuv, Set^aTo» (or ti's ... vplv; an interrogative sentence). 1 
The employment of 0<m.s or even of 8s in a direct question is quite 
incredible, except that o,rt appears to be used as an abbreviation for 
Tt o,ti 'why': Mc. 9. n eTnjpdiTwv avrov Aeyoi'Tes - o,ti Aeyowtv oi 
ypa/j-pareis k.t.A., 28 «V^/dwtwv aiVöV d,Tt 7/^ets owe ifivvijOiipei' 
eicßaXetv avro; (6W1 ADKIT), 2. 16 (ti 6V1 AC al., Smzti «D): cp. 

lxx. 1 Chron. 17. 6 o ) Tt = TVa% But Jo. 8. 25 tt)v dpx?]v o,ti »cat 
AaAw u/xiv ; means according to classical usage (a meaning, it is true, 
which cannot be paralleled from the N.T.): you ask, why (so in 
classical Greek A says tis «ttiv ; to which B replies ooris ; sc. epwras 
you ask who he is?) do I speak to you at all? (tijv apxyv = o\<o$) : 
cp. for the direct question Clem. Horn. vi. 1 1 ri koli ttjv dpx^jv SiaAe- 
yo/xat ; xix. 6 e7rei ri ko.1 tt)v dpx>)V (i)Tet • while in Mt. 26. 50 eralpt 
i<p' o irdpei, croupe must be a corruption either of atpe or kraipe aipe : 
' take what thou art come to fetch ' (D has tratpc after irdpet).- 

6. It has already been remarked in § 13, 5 that the interrogative 
tCs (both in direct and indirect questions, supra 5) is also used for 
iroTtpos 'which of two?': Mt. 21. 31 tis Ik twv 8vo, 9. 5, L. 7. 42 etc 
A stereotyped phrase is irörepov ... 1} utrum in indirect double 
questions, but found only in Jo. 7. 17 (Herrn. Sim. ix. 28. 4). Tis 
is for the most part used substantially ; beside the adjectival n's 
(ti's ßacriAei's L. 14. 31, Ti o~t]p,(.iov Jo. 2. 18, Tts /jl€TO)(tJ etc. 2 C. 
6. 14 ff.) ttoios is also used with little distinction from it, as also in 
classical Greek — nowhere, however, in inquiries after persons, but in 
such phrases as iv ttolo. l£owta, ttouo ovo/xart (A. -1. 7), ttolu i'opa, ck 7rotas 
(irap^ias (A. 23. 34), Sta, ttolov vo/xov (R. 3. 27), ttouo o-u)p.aTi (the pron. 
having its strict sense, how constituted) 1 C. 15. 35, cp. Ja. 4. 14 ~oU> 
yap 1) (•>} om. B) £(0?) v/jLwv (how miserably constituted ; on the other hand 
it is not elsewhere found with an article, Tts being used in that case : 
Mc. 6. 2 n's 1) <ro<f>ia, whence coming, A. 10. 21 Tts ■>) atria, 17. 19 
etc.); with an adj. ti is always used : ti dyadov, koko'v, Trepio-o-äv. 
The two words are united tautologically (for emphasis) in «is riva 
?) TToiov Koapov 1 P. 1. 1 1 j there is a diversity of reading in Mc. 4. 30 
iv Tivt (71-0101 AC 2 D al.) TrapaßoXy ; the two are used interchangeably 
in A. 7. 49 TToiov oiKov ... 7} Tts ToTTos. In L. 24. 19 77-010. stands by 
itself, referring to 18 tu yevoLieva. Beside ttckos we have also the 
later TroTairos (old form 7roSa7rds, of what country by birth, like 
dAAoSa7rds, I'l/xeSaTros ; for ttot. =7rotos Lob. Phryn. 56), the latter 
being used of persons as well as things: 7roTa7rds Icttiv oStos, ös k.t.A., 
Mt. 8. 27 ( = Tts dpa Mc. 4. 41, L. 8. 25), Tts xa\ irora-tri) ■>) yvvi) 
L. 7. 39, 2 P. 3. 11 ; of things Mc. 13. 1, L. 1. 29, 1 Jo. 3. 1 (how 
constituted, also how great or mighty ; like -otat = ra-ts in Herrn. 
Mand. VÜi. 3 TTOTaira!. elcrtv at TTOVi)piat) . 

1 In Mt. 26. 62 = Mc. 14. 60 ovdev äwoKpivri ; rl ovroi crov KaraiiapTvpovaiv ; it is 
impossible to unite the words in a single sentence, because äiroicpiveadai would 
require a irpbs, Mt. 27. 14. In the passage of James one may adduce 5. 13 in 
favour of separating the clauses : KaKo-rraOd tis ; TrpocrevxceOu, cp. § 82. 

2 [Many commentators supply iroirjaov 'do that for which thou art come.' Tr.] 

§ 50. 7. § Si- !•] INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS. iyj 

7. The neuter ti is used as predicate to ravTa (as in class. Greek, 
Krüger Gr. § 61, 8, 2) in ri (av) tuj ravra L. 15. 26 (ti dkXu rovro 
dvat. D), A. 17. 20 DEHL (v.l. riva), Herrn. Vis. iv. 3. 1 ; it is 
necessary in Jo. 6. 9 dAAo. ravra ri ka-nv (of what use are they) 
ets rotrovrovs ; further we have avSpes, ri ravTa wotiire. A. 14. 15, as 
in Demosth. 55. 5 T«o-ia, ri ravra Trouis (what are you doing 
there ?), cp. with a singular demonstr. pron. L. 16. 2 ri tovto o.kov(x> 
vepl crov ; (ri predic.). 1 In the passage of Acts ri might also be 
understood in its very common meaning of ' why 1 ' (class.), Mt. 6. 28, 
L. 2. 48 etc.; to express this meaning besides 8l<x rl we have also 
Iva ri (sc. yevr/rai), A. 7. 25 O.T. Iva ri (Ivari) i<ppva£av e9v>] etc. 
(found in Attic), and ri o,ti (6'ti), written fully in ri ykyovzv on fjfuv 
fjieWtLS Ijxfyaviijeiv creavrov Jo. 14. 22 (where 6V1 = 6Y o,ti, just as 
r£=Sia ri), A. 5. 4, 9, L. 2. 49, v.l. in Mc. 2. 16, vide supra 5 (also 
lxx.). A. 12. 18 ri apa 6 Herpos iyevero, ' what was become of him,' 
is like Attic ri ye'vw/xat 2 ; so L. 1. 66 Tt apa to 7raiStov cWai ; A. 5. 24 
ri av yevoiTo rovro, ' what would be likely to happen in the matter,' 
'how it would turn out' (ri predic); in an abbreviated form otjtos 8e 
ri Jo. 21. 2i, 'what will become of him 1 ?' T6 ' how ' = Hebr. SITO 
(Win. § 21, 3, note 3), Mt. 7. 14 ri <rrev>j (v.l. 6'ti), L. 12. 49 it 
öeAw (lxx.). — T£ 7rpbs 17/ias (sc. eo-Tt), 'what does it concern us?.' 
Mt. 27. 4 : ri 77-/DÖS ere Jo. 21. 22 (cp. § 30, 3 ; Attic has also ri ravr' 
ep.oi; Kühner ii. 2 365, and so 1 C. 5. 12 ri yap p.01 rovs e£w Kpiveiv; 
where it takes the inf. as in Epict. Diss. ii. 17. 14, Win.); ri ep.ol Kal 
o-oi (sc. ecmi', Kühner 364 ; but also a Hebrew phrase as in 2 Kings 
3. 13) Mt. 8. 29 etc., § 30, 3 ; St. Paul has ri yap R 3. 3, Ph. 1. 18 
(what matters it ? or what difference is it 1) and ri ovv (sc. tpovpev) 
R 6. 15. The masc. is used predicatively in iyu ris -ijfirjv A. 11. 17, 
cp. 2 Kings 8. 13. — Neut. and masc. pronouns are combined (as in 
class. Greek) in tis ri apy Mc. 15. 24, ris ri Sieirpaypiarevo-aTo (what 
each man had etc., but kBDL read ri 8u7rpayp,ar€va-avro), L. 19. 15 
(Herrn. Vis. iii. 8. 6, Mand. vi. 1. 1). 


1. Tis, ti, as in classical Greek, is both substantival and adjectival; 
when used in the latter way, its position is unrestricted, so that it 
may even stand before its substantive, so long as there is another 
word in front of it, Kai tis dvijp A. 3. 2, 'iva n pieraSw \apicrp.a P. 1. 11; 
Tives stands at the beginning of the sentence in contrasts : nvh (p*v) 
...t. Se 1 Tim. 5. 24, Ph. 1. 15 (Demosth. 9. 56), and even where 
there is no contrasted clause: nvh Se A. 17. 18, 19. 31, Jo. 7. 44 
etc. (Demosth. 18. 44). — Special usages: Ja. 1. 18 a-n-apxqv tivo. tw 
avrov Kncrpdrwv, softening the metaphorical expression ('so to 

1 Also Mt. 26. 62 = Mc. 14. 60 (sup. 5, note 1) ri odrol <rov Kara^aprvpoddiv 
resolves itself into ri iariv 5 oI>toI a. k. 

2 Joseph, de vita sua, § 296, 01 dKoai. xpvcrol ri yeydvaaiv ; Xenoph. Hell. ii. 3. 
17 ri £<joito i] TroKiTeia (W.-Gr.). 



speak,' 'a kind of first fruits'); with numbers in classical Greek it 
has the effect of making them indefinite, 'about,' but in A. 23. 23 
(cp. Herrn. Vis. i. 4. 3) we have rtvas 8vo ' a certain pair ' (to which 
corresponds «s tis L. 22. 50, Jo. 11. 49; cp. § 45, 2); with an 
adjective (frequent in class. Greek) (jtoßepd Tts (k8ox>j H. 10. 27, it 
has an intensifying force like quidam, Kühner ii. 2 570 f. (v-rreprjcfxxvia 
iroXX-q Tis, Herrn. Mand. vi. 2. 5) ; but in A. 8. 9 dvai nva eavrbv fJ-cyav, 
[xkyav appears to be an interpolation, and nra to be used emphatically, 
a person of importance, cp. 5. 35, Kühner 571 note 1 ; so etvai t« ' to 
be something important' G. 2. 6 (Sokovvtuv «tVcu Tt, = Plat. Gorg. 
472 a, Gercke), 6. 3. — Tts is used for 'each' in Herrn. Sim. viii. 2. 5 
Kadios tt£ids «tti Tts KaTotK-etv, cp. 4. 2 (A. 15. 2 according to the 
Syriac). — On tis to be supplied with a partitive word see § 35, 4. 

2. 'No one,' 'nobody' is otjS«is or p?Sets (on -ßa's, see § 6, 7 fin.; 
ovdeTepos Clem. Horn. xix. 12); in addition to these we have the 
Hebraic ov (fir)) . . . 7ras, where the verb becomes closely attached to 
the ov (or /xt)) : Mt. 24. 22 ovk dv lo-toOrj irdcra <rdp£, like Hebr. 
PjD--»fiv> R- 3. 20 (cp. Ps. 142. 2), L. 1. 37 ovk d8vvaTijo-eL irapd no 
#€<o 7rav prjp.a ( = nothing), Ap. (7. 16, 9. 4) 21. 27, A. 10. 14 oi'oOTOTe 
«0ayov irdv koivov (on the other hand ov 7ras with no words inteven- 
ing='not everyone,' as in class. Greek, Mt. 7. 21, 1 C. 15. 39); 7ras 
... oi (also Hebraic äp . . . p2 has the same meaning, but is less harsh 
than the other, Ap. 18. 22, 22. 3, E. 4. 29, 5. 5, 2 P. 1. 20, 1 Jo. 2. 
21, 3. 15; this use is excusable, where a positive clause with d\\d 
follows, containing the principal point of the sentence, Jo. 3. 1 6 tW 
7ras o ttio-t£vu)v fii) uTToXyjTai, dAAa eyj^ k.t.A., 6. 39, or where such a 
clause is clearly to be supplied as in 12. 46. 1 Efs ... ov is stronger 
than oi'Sets, Mt. 10. 29 cv ...ov Tr^o-drai, 5. 18, L. 11. 46 etc., as in 
Demosth. 30. ^^ 1) yvvq p,iav t)p.epav ovk k\i]p€vo-e.v (Krüger, § 24, 2, 2); 
the same is true of the divided ovSe efs A. 4. 32, Mt. 27. 14, Jo. 1. 3 
(k*D ovSev), E. 3. 10 O.T. (oi... ovSe efs, cp. § 75, 6 ; ibid. 12 O.T. 
ovk '£o~TLV ews evo's, Buttm. p. 106, 1). 

3. The generalizing relatives 6o-tio~ovv, oo-tis S^irore etc. do not 
appear either as relatives or (with a verb to be supplied) as indefinite 
pronouns ('someone or other'); oi'w Sr^rrorovv with v.l. m 8?y7roTe (relat. ) 
is found in an interpolated passage 'Jo.' 5. 4. In A. 19. 26 after 
IlaGAos D adds Tts totc, which should be corrected to Tts ttotc = Lat. 
nescio quis ; so Clem. Horn. v. 27 Tts ttotc 'IouSatos 'some Jew or 
other,' Tt 7roTe 'something' (modern Greek uses tiVot€ for 'some- 
thing ' or ' nothing ') xi. 28, xvii. 8 (n's for 6'o-tis, § 50, 5 2 ; cp. the 
adverb 6irw$ -kotz ' somehow ' Clem. Horn. ii. 22, where do-™' is to be 
supplied) : Attic uses ocms lo-riv or dv rj, Eurip. Bacch. 247, 
Demosth. iv. 27, the latter being used by St. Paul in G. 5. 10. 

4. On the derived correlatives ofos, 6'0-os, toioutos, too-ovtos etc. 
(§ 12, 4) the following points may be noticed. In exclamations 
(direct or indirect ; originally indirect, ' see how,' ' I marvel how ') 

1 On 1 C. 15. 51 oi» Trdvres, as also on ov irdvTws, iravrws ov, see § 75, 7. 

2 So also Tii'oo-oC«' (according to the MS. p) for -rjarivojovv Clem. Horn. x. 20. 

§ 51. 4-6.] PRONOMINAL WORDS. iyg 

the forms ofos, 6Vos, i^Aikos should strictly be used, as in classical 
Greek, because some definite thing before one is indicated (so that 
O7ro6os etc. are excluded) ; but here too we sometimes have the inter- 
rogative forms as in indirect questions : Mc. 15. 4 i8e Trocra k.t.X., 
Mt. 27. 13 (B* 6'cra), A. 21. 20, 2 C. 7. 11 (direct), iSere tttjXikois 
k.t.X. G. 6. 11, H. 7. 14; but ofos is correctly used in 1 Th. 1. 5, 
2 Tim. 3. 11 (in L. 9. 55 D is right with ttol'ov), 1 cp. irws, § 76, 3. — 
In correlative clauses we have toiovtovs ... cVoios A. 26. 29 (qualis- 
cunque) ; toctovtco . . . oVw H. 1. 4; but as 00-01 = Carres of, it has 
frequently to be followed by ovtoi, as in R. 8. 14; peculiar is rhv 
avrbv ... oTov Ph. 1. 30. — On 6 Totouros see § 47, 9; it is weakened 
into a more indefinite term for ovtos in 2 C. 12. 2, 3, 5, 1 C. 5. 5, 
2 C. 2. 6 f. — R. 9. 6 oi'x ofov Se on iKireirTUKei' is to be explained 
(according to Lob. Phryn. 372, Buttm. 319) as for ov Sijirov eWe^r., 
cp. o^x on, § 81. — With H. 10. 37 O.T. eri fuKpbv ocrov oaov (cp. LXX. 
Is. 26. 20) and L. 5. 3 D öa-ov öcrov (for oAiyoi' of the 
other MSS.) i.e. a trifle, compare Aristoph. Vesp. 213. 

5. 'Each ' ÜKao-Tos (without the art. § 47, 9; ibid, for the distinction 
between it and 7ras; for rvs 'each' supra 1) is intensified as efs 
e/cao-Tos; it is added to a plural subject Avithout affecting the con- 
struction (class.), Winer § 58, 4 ; Jo. 16. 32 etc. In addition to 
cKao-Tos there has been developed out of the distributive Kara (or dvd, 
§ 45, 3) the peculiar and grossly incorrect Kad' (dvd) efs, since Kad' 
eva exao-Tov became stereotyped as Kadeva 4'k., and this called forth 
a corresponding nominative ; so in modern Greek ' each ' is /caöevas. 
Still there are not many instances as yet in the N.T. of this vulgarism, 
and the amalgamation of the two words into one has not yet been 
carried out : Mc. 14. 19 €ts Kara (koÖ' AD al.) eis (C efs eWo-ros), 
'Jo.' 8. 9 efs Kaß' efs, R. 12. 5 to Se Kad' efs severally, with reference 
to each individual, Ap. 21. 21 dvd efs eKao-Tos. (Herrn. Sim. ix. 3.4, 
6. 3 Kara eVa = eKacrrov, forming the whole object.) 

6. "ETepos and HWos- "Erepos is beside a/A^öVepoi the single surviv- 
ing dual pronominal word, § 13, 5 ; in modern Greek it likewise has 
disappeared, and even in the N.T. instances of its use cannot be 
quoted from all writers (never in Mc. [16. 12 is spurious], the 
Apocalypse, or Peter, never in John except in 19. 37, used prin- 
cipally by Lc. and to some extent by Mt. and Paul). Moreover, the 
way in which it is employed is no longer always correct : Mt. 16. 14 
06 [xev...dXXoi 8e . . . eVepoi 8e (in the last two clauses Mc. 8. 28, 
L. 9. 19 have dXXoi twice ; eVepoi could have stood correctly in the 
second clause = a second section), L. 8. 6 ff. kou erepov three times (D 
aAAo, as in Mt. 13. 5 ff., Mc. 4. 5 ff.), 9. 59, 61, 1 G 12. 9 f. (<S f£v 
...dXXo) Se...eTepw — then four times dXXw 8e ... kr'epw... dXXw Se), 
H. 11. 36. The use at the close of enumerations of /ecu erepovs 7roA- 
Aors Mt. 15. 30 (cp. L. 3. 18, R. 8. 39, 13. 4, 1 Tim. 1. 10) may be 
paralleled from Attic writers (Dem. 18. 208, 219, 19. 297): others, 
different from those named (the latter being conceived of as a unit) ; 

1 Also passages like A. 9. 16 vwodei^u) aiVry, 6<xa 5e: iraOeh avrov may be so 
taken, but the explanation of '6<xa = irdvTa ä is more natural (so 14. 27 etc.). 

jSo PRONOMINAL WORDS. [§5i-6. §52. 

but no Attic author ever said Tats trepais ttoX&tiv, 'the remaining 
cities ' L. 4. 3, for o erepos is restricted to a definite division into two 
parts; hence Mt. 10. 23 is also incorrect, ev rij 7roA« TaiVj; ... eis tt|v 
hepav (kB ; aAA^v CE rell., with which the article is still more 
unusual ; no doubt ' the next city ' is what is meant 1 ). Ph. 2. 4 tu 
täv (add. D*FG) hep(ov opposed to to. «u>twv is correct, cp. 1 C. 10. 
24 al. — In the case of dAAos the most striking encroachment on the 
province of «Vcpos is that 6 aAAo? is written where there is only a 
division into two parts : Mt. 5. 39 (L. 6. 29) o-rpexj/ov cu'tw Kai rqv 
aAA?;v (o-taydva), 12. 13, Jo. 18. 16, 19. 32, 20. 3 f. etc.; but also in 
the case of aAAos i<rrlv 6 paprvpuiv Jo. 5. 32 (opposed to eyw) erepos 
should have been used, whereas in Mt. 25. 16 etc. uAAa irkvre. TaAai/Ta 
may be illustrated from classical authors (Plato Leg. v. 745 A ciAAo 
too-oiVov pepos). — "ETepoi is used pleonastically (like äAAoi in class. 
Greek, Kühner ii. 2 245, note 1) in L. 23. 32 ko.1 erepoi 8vo Kanovpyoi 
= two others besides Him, malefactors ; on the other hand, aAAos is 
absent in many places where we insert 'other': A. 5. 29 neVpos Kal 
ol (sc. aAAot) caroo-ToAoi ; 2. 14 II. crw rots (sc. Xonrols) cvScxa ; cp. 
in classical Greek "Ek-to/h Kai Tpweo-o-i Horn. II. 17. 291. — "AAA01 
aAAo (n) are united with the meaning 'one one thing — one another ' 
(classical) in A. 19. 32, 21. 34. 2 



The system of three voices of the verb — active (transitive), pas- 
sive (intransitive), and middle (i.e. transitive with reference to the 
subject) — remains on the whole the same in the N.T. as in the 
classical language. In the former, as in the latter, it frequently 
happens in the case of individual verbs that by a certain arbitrariness 
of the language this or that voice becomes the established and recog- 
nized form for a particular meaning, to the exclusion of another 
voice, which might perhaps appear more appropriate to this meaning. 
It is therefore a difficult matter to arrive at any general conception 
for each of the voices, which when applied to particular cases is not 
bound at once to become subject to limitation or even contradiction. 
The active does not in all cases denote an action, but may equally 
well denote a state, or even being affected in some way or other- — ideas 
which would be more appropriately expressed by the passive. Xalpw 

1 The fuller (and certainly original) form of expression in D al. has an addi- 
tional clause : k&v iv rrj irtpq. (ÄXXt? D) Siükühtiv vfias, «^etryere eis tt)v dWrjv (once 
more into the next). 

2 Hermas almost always uses trepos for 'other,' even with the article as in 
Vis. iii. 7. I, 3 tovs 5e irepovs (\L0ovs), Rim. viii. 1. 7-18 ; but <5E\Xos Kai dXXös for 
'differing in each instance,' or 'in each individual,' Sim. ix. 1. 4, 10 (cp. 
Xenoph. Cyrop. iv. 1. 15 ' always fresh '). 

§52- §53-1-] VOICES OF THE VERB. ^i 

means ' I rejoice,' but the opposite is ; accordingly in the 
aorist lydp-qv we actually have the passive form as in eXvn-qdrjv. In 
Oavpdfa, 'I am astonished' (wonder), the active voice is at most only 
correct with the meaning "to see with astonishment'- it has a middle 
future 6avp.dcrop.aL, cp. Oedcropai ; but the verb of similar 
meaning dyapai has rjydrrd-qv and accordingly (as a verb expressing 
emotion) is passive, and the later language creates the corresponding 
forms 6avfid(ofxat depon., and aor. Wavpdo-6i]v, § 20, 1. We may 
therefore assert that the active voice is quite unlimited in the mean- 
ings which may be attached to it, except where a passive (or middle) 
voice exists beside it, as in tvtttio - Twriopi. It must further be 
added that certain verbal forms unite an active formation with a 
passive (intransitive) meaning, particularly the 1st and 2nd aorists pas- 
sive in -0-qv, -7]v, and frequently perfects in -a, -xa (a7roAcoAa, eb-T^Ka). 
On the other hand, the middle can be only imperfectly differentiated 
from the passive, with which in the forms of the tenses, with the 
exception of aorist and future, it entirely coincides. We may adhere 
to the rule of giving the name of middle only to those forms which 
share the transitive meaning of the active, as icrrrjcrdprjv 
beside «m//« «m/o-a ; but if no active form exists, or if the meaning 
of the active form does not correspond to that of the passive or 
middle, then it is difficult to distinguish between the two last- 
mentioned voices. 'ATroKpivofiai, 'answer,' is a deponent verb when 
it has this meaning ; since it is transitive, in classical Greek it takes 
the forms aTreKpivdp.ijv, aTTOKpivov/xat ; the later language, however, 
regardless of the meaning which elsewhere attaches to aorists in 
-6?]v, regularly uses direKpiOyv, d-n-oKpi6'>] from 
6avp.d£u> should be called middle, since it is transitive, and the 
classical language possesses the additional form 6avpao-6-i') with 
a passive meaning; the same applies to regopai from tuctoj and many 
other such futures ; but diro9avovp.aL from dirodryo-KO), Bpk^opai from 
rpe\(o ( from ZSpapLov), being intransitive, and having no 
additional future forms, must certainly be classed as passives in the 
same category with the later]cropai, 1 if the conception of 
the passive is extended, as it must be, so that it becomes equivalent 
to intransitive. It is, in fact, quite a rare occurrence for the 
language to draw a distinction between intransitive and passive, such 
as in Attic is drawn between eo-Trjv 'placed myself and lo-Tadyv 
'was placed,' or between o-n'] 'shall place myself and 
o-TaQi)o~opai 'shall be placed.' In the language of poetry and in the 
later language this distinction hardly exists at all : there kcrrddyv is 
equivalent to 'ko-rrjv and $advQr\v to l<$>dvqv (while in Attic kcfrdvyv 
means 'appeared,' l<pdvd^v 'was informed against' [juridical term]). 


1. Some active verbs, which were originally transitive, subse- 
quently developed an additional intransitive (or reflexive) meaning. 

1 'EdavfxdaOrjv Ap. 13. 3, Oav/xaadricroi'Tat 17. 8 have ceased to be used transi- 

1 82 ACTIVE VOICE. [§ 53. 1. 

"Ayw 'lead,' besides the stereotyped phrase dye. ( = class.), is also 
used intransitively in dyuypev 'let us go' Mt. 2G. 46 etc.; and still 
more frequently in composition : thus we have virayio, a vulgar word for 
'to go,' esp. common in the forms v-n-aye, -ere, but also found in other 
forms of the present stem, e.g. iVayet Jo. 3. 8 (the word is most 
frequent in this writer), but never in other tenses, cp. § 24 (the word 
is previously used in classical Greek, v-n-dyed' vp.els rrjs o8ov Aristoph. 
Ran. 174, virdyoipa rap ixv Av. 1017, but with a more clearly defined 
meaning); Trapdyeiv 'to pass by' 1 , Mt. 20. 30, Mc. 15. 21 etc. (cp. 
Polyb. v. 18, 4): met. 'to disappear' 1 C. 7. 31, for which 1 Jo. 2. 
8, 17 uses Trapdyercu ; irepidyav Mt. 4. 23, A. 13. II etc. 'to go 
about,' with accus, of the district traversed, cp. § 34, 1 (not so in 
class. Greek 2 ). Also irpodytiv besides the meaning ' to bring before ' 
acquires that of ' to go before anyone (nva) ' (in class. Greek we 
have Plat. Phaed. 90 A <rov Trpodyovros «yw e(pe<nr6p.rji', but this is 
different to the N.T. use ; the common phrase is ■Kpo-^ydvQo.i nvi, 
which like r/yeicrOat is never so used in the N.T.), Mt. 2. 9 and 
passim; but dvdyeo-Oai dvi))(d-i]v. — BdX.\av ' to rush' A. 27. 14 (the 
use can hardly be paralleled, but cp. piVreiv) ; eVt/3. ' to rush upon ' 
(as already in class. Greek) Mc. 4. 37 ; ibid. 14. 72 the phrase 
kwißakotv cKXatev is obscure (it is explained by dp£dp,evo<; • D has 
■Ijp'qaTO k\o.Uiv ; cp. A. 11. 4 ap£a/i,evos e^eTtöero). — Bpe'\€tv trans, 
means ' to water ' ; intrans. and impers. (§ 30, 4) it stands for class. 
iSeiv (which nowhere appears) as in modern Greek ; we also have 
eßpege wvp «at Odov L. 17. 29, after Gen. 19. 24, where xvpios is 
inserted as the subject. — -"Exeiv 'to be in such and such circum- 
stances ' as in class. Greek ; similarly iVcpexetv ' to excel ' ' (also 
trans. ' to surpass ' Ph. 4. 7) : dirkx^-v ' to be distant ' (with accus, of 
the distance) ; ivkyew (sc. xoAoi/) 'to be angry' Mc. 6. 19 (L. 11. 53); 
«rexetv 'to observe anything' L. 14. 7 etc. (similarly in class. 
Greek), also 'to stay,' 'tarry' A. 19. 22 (ditto); ■n-poo-e'x* 11 ' 'to take 
heed,' ' to listen to anyone ' (never with the original supplement tov 
vovv, which is often inserted in Attic) : also with and without eain-<p 
= cavere (Mt. 6. 1, L. 17. 2 etc.). 3 — 'AvaKd^TTTeiv 'to turn round,' 
'come back' as in Attic. — KXlvnv 'to decline' of the day L. 9. 12, 
24. 29 (similarly in Polyb.); eiacXiveiv 'to turn aside' R. 16. 17 etc. 
(class.). — 'Pfrirmv : diropixpavTas is intrans. in A. 27. 43 (so piirr. in 
poetry and late writers). — 2Tp«<J>av : the simple verb is intrans. in 
A. 7. 42 1 as is often the case with its compounds with eVi-, diro-, 
dva-, inro-, A. 3. 19 etc., not without classical precedent; viroo-rpk- 
facrdai is never found (in class. Greek it is used as well as -eiv) ; 

1 The explanation that it means discedere arises from Mt. 9. 27 irapayovri 
txeWev, where vwayovn would be the correct word ; in 9. 9 ineWev should prob- 
ably be omitted with K*L. 

2 Demosth. 42. 5 irepiayayuv (to lead about) ttjc fcrxartdj' ; also in Cebes Tab. 
6 7reptd70VTai is the reading now adopted. 

3 IIepte'x e »' ' to contain ' (of a written document) is in the first instance transi- 
tive : ■n-epUx ol " JCLV T <iöe A. 15. 23 D : wepiix- (^x ovaav ^T5) tov tvttov tovtov 23. 25; 
but we also have the phrases ir. tov rpoirov tovtov or ovtws, worded in this way 
(Joseph.), and in 1 P. 2. 6 71-fpte'x« if (rrj) ypacpy (v 7P a< Pv C), 'stands written.' 

§53-1-3.] ACTIVE VOICE. ^3 

tiricTTpkfaLv ' to turn round,' ' be converted ' (for which we have 
-eo-Tpd<f>i]Te in 1 P. 2. 25, but C reads -cipare), so esp. frequent in this 
sense in Polybius : pass, 'to turn oneself round,' look round' (Att.); 
dvacrrp. ' to turn round,' often used transitively as well (it appears 
intransitively in Attic as a military expression) : pass. ' to live,' 
'sojourn' (Att.); cnroo-Tp. is intr. in A. 3. 26 (for which Att. generally 
has the pass.), more often trans.; pass, with rtvd ' to turn away from,' 
'avoid' (Att.). — Cp. eydpeiv, KaOifav in § 24; and further, technical 
expressions like a'tpav (sc. ty/v vavv dirb TTjs 77/s) 'to set sail' A. 27. 13, 

2. The intransitive employment of 8v'«iv and <f>v€iv is based upon 
an old variation in the usage of these words, see § 24 ; that of 
a{i|dv€iv upon the usage of the Hellenistic language, ibid. Beside 
the deponent evayyeX^o-eai (Att.) there is also found the form -£eiv in 
Ap. 10. 7, 14. 6 (elsewhere the Ap. also uses -(eo-ö W), as occasionally 
in the lxx., 1 Sam. 31. 9 (Dio Cass. 61. 13). The new words 
öpiaußsveiv and jia6T]T€v€iv in other writers are intrans. (to celebrate a 
triumph, to be a disciple — corresponding to the ordinary meaning 
of the termination -eveiv), in the N.T. they are in (nearly) all cases 
transitive, to lead in triumph, to make disciples, see § 34, 1. — 
Ava4>dvavT€s rrjv KiVpov A. 21. 3 (there is a wrong reading -evres) 
means 'made it visible to ourselves,' viz. by approaching it ; it must 
have been a nautical expression, as dTroupvirrziv (Lat. abscondere) is 
used to express the opposite meaning. 

3. Active for middle. — If emphasis is laid on the reference to the 
subject, then the middle is never employed, but the active with a 
reflexive pronoun takes its place : aTreKTeivev cavrov (on the other 
hand uTnjy^aTo is used, because a7rayx etl/ nva, i.e. someone else, is 
unusual, the reflexive action being in this instance far the commoner 
of the two). So we say 'he killed himself [tödtete sich selbst]. 
Elsewhere the reflexive reference which is suggested by the context 
remains unexpressed, as in the case of (Kara-)8ovX.ovv (which Attic 
also uses beside -ovcrdai): 2 C. 11. 20 ei n? vp,d<s Kara8ovXoi, cp. 
G. 2. 4 (so too üi/<x(£avavT€s, supra 2). Inversely, the reflexive may 
be expressed twice over, by the middle and by a pronoun ; 8iep,epi- 
cravro eavTois Jo. 19. 24 O.T., cp. A. 7. 21 (as in Attic). With the 
following verbs the use of the active instead of the middle is 
contrary to Attic usage : (ireipdfav for TreipdaOai, see § 24) ; tvpio-Kfiv 
' to obtain ' the usual form, except in H. 9. 12 (Attic uses the middle, 
poets have the act. as well); Kadrjipev Trjs x et po s a vrov A. 28. 3 
instead of Kadrpparo which C reads (but ro£ov Kaßdipat is also cited 
by Pollux i. 164); \va-ov to iVoS^a twi/ ttoSoJv crov A. 7. 33 O.T. 
(LXX. Aucrai). For irape'xsiv see § 55, 1. LTowiv is used (with p-ov-qv 
Jo. 14. 23 only in AEGH al.) (with 686v Mc. 2. 23, BGH have 
o8ottoi€lv), with r?yv €k8lk^ctiv L. 18. 7 f., to e'Aeos p>€t' avrov a Hebraic 
phrase (Gen. 24. 12) L. 10. 37, 1. 72, with eveSpav A. 25. 3? kott€tov 
8. 2 (-o-avTO EHP), KpivLV Jo. 5. 27, Jude 15, 7roAe/uiov Ap. 11. 7 etc., 
(rvp.ßov\iov Mc. 3. 6 (BL i8i8ovv), 15. I (v.l. CTOt/xao-avTes), (with 
(rvvo}p.ocrtav A. 23. 13 only in HP), with <rvcrTpo(f)'>]v ibid. 12 ; in all 

1 84 A CTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES. [§ 53. 3. § 54. 1-3. 

which cases the active is incorrect because the ttoiouvtcs are at the 
same time the very persons who carry out the action which is 
expressed by the verbal substantive. We also have elsewhere in 
the N.T. TTOMicrdai Aoyov, dvaßoXijv, Tropeiav, <jirovBi]v etc. Eirdo-ao-Gai 
n)v fidxaipav is correctly written in Mc 14. 47, A. 16. 27, but in 
Mt. 26. 51 we have d-n-to-n-ao-ev t. p.. avrov, in which case Attic Greek 
must certainly have omitted the avrov and expressed the reflexive 
force by means of the middle ; similarly in 26. 65 Suppy]^ev to. [jidria 
avrov, but in this case the use of the active is also classical (Aesch. 
Pers. 11)9 7re7r\ovs pi'jyrvcriv, cp. 1030). 


1. Even deponent verbs with a transitive meaning can (as in 
Attic) have a passive, the forms of which are for the most part 
identical with those of the deponent. Koyi^rai ' is reckoned ' 
R. 4. 4 f. (therefore even the present of this vb. occasionally has 
a passive meaning : the instances of this in classical writers are not 
numerous, but cp. Hdt. 3. 95 \oyt(6p.tvov). 'Iwvto A. 5. 16 D: 
larai perf. Mc. 5. 29 ; kpyatpp,kvt) Herrn. Sim. v. 3. 8. But the 
passive sense is frequent in the case of the aorist, where the passive 
and deponent forms are distinguishable : k\oyio-0yjv, Iddiiv, k\apio-dy)v, 
kppvcrdrjV etc. (fut. Xoyio-dqcrop-ai R. 2. 26, ladder. Mt. 8. 8, aTrapvridijo-. 
[§ 20, 1] L. 12. 9). 

2. While in Attic Greek the passives of some ordinary verbs are 
regularly represented by the actives of other verbs, — e.g. diroKrelveiv 
takes for passive diroOvyo-Keiv, ev (kcikcos) irouiv pass, ev (kci/cws) 
~d(r\£LV, ev (ko,k.) Xkyuv pass, ev (kcik.) aKoveiv, and vno is used with 
these verbs as the connecting particle as it is elsewhere with true 
passives — there are but few traces of this usage in the N.T. (kKTr'nrreiv 
A. 27. 17, 26, 29 = ki<ßd\.\eo-9ai. but does not take vnro : on the other 
hand ki<ßdWeo-£a.L is used in Mt. 8. 1 2 etc., though this form is also 
found in Attic; irdo-x^v vtto Mt. 17. 12, where kTroirjo-av has pre- 
ceded, Mc. 5. 26, 1 Th. 2. 14); still the instances of the contrary 
usage are also not numerous: d-n-oKTavO^vai Mc. 9. 31 etc. The 
passive of iroidv, with the exception of H. 12. 27 is entirely un- 

3. As in Attic, a passive verb may have a person for its subject 
even in a case where in the active this person is expressed by the 
genitive or dative; the accusative of the thing remains the same 
with the passive as with the active verb. The N.T. instances cannot 
indeed be directly illustrated from the classical language, but they 
are perfectly analogous to the classical instances. They are Skxkovti- 
0i}v(u Mc. 10. 45 (piaxovtlv Tin); e-yKaXao-Ocu to be accused (kynakzlv 
rivi) A. 19. 40 etc.; tiapea-Ttia-Qai (act. with Ttvi) H. 3. 16 (Diod. Sic); 
KOT€7Vü>o-fi.€vos G. 2. 1 1 (act. rtvos), so Diod. Sic; Ka-nryopeio-öai (act. 
tivos) with ace of the thing Mt. 27. 12, A. 22. 30, 25. 16 ; napTvpeio-0ai 
(act. Ttvi') to have a (good) testimonial (late Avriters) A. 6. 3 etc., 
1 Tim. 5. 10, H. 7. 8 etc (but in 3 Jo. 12 A?//x?/t/h(o pep-aprvp^TaL) ; 

§ 54- 3-5. § 55- I-] PASSIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 185 

irio-T€V€a-0cH ti 'to have something entrusted to one' (7rio-T€i'£iv tlvl ti) 
R. 3. 2 etc. (Polyb.): also (without an object) 'to find credit,' 

1 Tim. 3. 16 cTrio-TevOr] (Xpto-Tos) eV Koo-yuw (act. tlvl or eis nva), cp. 

2 Th. 1. 10 (so previously in Attic); xp^^t«* -0 » 1 'to receive in- 
structions' (from God; act. tlvl) Mt. 2. 12 etc.: only in L. 2. 26 do 
we have rjv aürw Ke\prj^aTL(Tjxkvov (D K€\prjjiaTia-p.kvos rjv). — Quite 
distinct from this is the use of the passive with a thing for its sub- 
ject : 2 C. 1. 11 i'va to ^dpLa-fxa €vx a P ia " rr l@V (tvxapicrTeiv ti Herm. 
Sim. vii. 5; in the N.T. the act. takes hri, -n-epc etc.), and its use 
where an infinitive or a 6Vt clause may be regarded as the subject, 
(TriTptTreTou. <tol ... Xkye.Lv A 26. 1, 1 C. 14. 34, as also the impersonal 
passive, § 30, 4. 

4. The passives of öpdv, -yi-yvwo-Kciv, evpio-Keiv have a certain inde- 
pendent position as compared with their actives, since they assume 
a purely intransitive meaning, and are followed by the dative of the 
person concerned, instead of making use of viro, see § 37, 4. A 
frequent instance is 6<j>0fjva£ tlvl (an old use), apparere, supervenire, 
with the new present oVröVo/xai A. 1. 3 (§24). rv«o-0fjvai 'to become 
known' A. 9. 24 etc., cp. yiyvwo-Keo-öai tlvl 'to be known,' in Eur. 
Cycl. 567, Xenoph. Cyr. vii. 1. 44; but 'to be recognized' is expressed 
by the pass, with v-n-6 in 1 C. 8. 3. Evp€0i)vai in R. 10. 20 O.T. (v.l. 
with ei') is used along with £[x<f>a.vrj yeveaOaL (on 2 P. 3. 14, see § 37, 5). 
©caGfjvai is used like 6$$. in Mt. 6. 1, 23. 5; <f>cuv«r0ai tlvl dates from 
the earliest stage of the language. 

5. The passive must occasionally be rendered by 'to let oneself 
be etc. 'ASiKeto-#e 1 C. 6, 7 ' let yourselves be wronged ' (in the 
sense of allowing it to take place), so in the same verse diToo-Tcptia-dz. 
Ba7rn£ecr #ai ' to let oneself be baptized ' (aor. ißaTTTLadrjv, but see 
§ 55, 2). Cp. ayi'L^ea-daL A. 21. 24, 26, a.Troypd<f>ecrOaL L. 2. I, ya/u- 
(eo-OaL (§ 24), 6oy/*a-n£«röai ' to let precepts be made for one ' Col. 
2. 20, TrepLTepLveo-OaL passim. On the other hand, ' to let ' in the sense 
of occasioning some result is expressed by the middle voice, § 55, 2. 


1. As the active is used in place of the middle, so the middle often 
stands for the active which would naturally be expected. 'A(j.viv€o-0ai 
'to assist ' = the Attic dfxvveiv in A. 7. 24 (the word occurs here 
only). For dimXeio-Oai see § 24. 'A7r€K8vcrdp.evos Tas dpxd-s is found 
in Col. 2. 15, whereas in Attic aTroBvo-acrdaL is 'to undress oneself.' 
'Hp|i.oo-d|iTjv t'yuas dvSpi, 2 C. 11. 2 'betrothed' is for rjp/xoo-a (the word 
here only). ('Ev€pY<=io-0ai is wrongly quoted in this connection : in 
the following passages R 7. 5, 2 C. 1. 6, 4. 12, G. 5. 6, E. 3. 20, 
Col. 1. 29, 1 Th. 2. 13, 2 Th. 2. 7, Ja. 5. 16 it is everywhere 
intransitive, and never applied to God, of whom the active is used ; 
the fact that the active appears in Mt. 14. 2, Mc. 6. 14 with Swa/zeis 
as subject, causes Zvepyelv to appear equivalent to eve/oyeio-öcu). 
(The middle cKAeyeo-öat is always found, meaning ' to choose out 
for oneself,' and it is only in A. 6. 5, 15. 22, 25 that it is not 

1 86 MIDDLE VOICE. [§ 55. 1-2. 

absolutely necessary to mentally supply 'for oneself). ('E?™- 
SeiKwa-dai A. 9. 39 [elsewhere N.T. has the act.] may mean 'to 
display on their own persons.') KaTa\ap.ßdv£o-8<u 'to perceive' A. 4. 13 
etc. (Att. -tiv, but Dionys. Hal. also has the middle). Iiap(vrnp€i<r9ai. 
L. 14. 1 al. (used as well as -tt; pelv ; the simple verb only takes the 
active form). n\Tipoiio-0ai E. 1. 23 'to fill' is equivalent to the act. 
in 4. 10. npopXe'ireo-eai H. 11. 40 is modelled on irpoopdo-dai (ßXeireiv 
for opäv § 24) ; -irtpißXeireo-Gai is the invariable form of the verb 
(Polyb. ; Attic uses the act.). Ttffco-eai ev <f>vXaKy and similar 
phrases, 'to put in prison' A. 4. 3 etc. (always the middle verb) 
are in accordance with classical usage (/<aTa#rio-o/i.evos els to 01*0/7x0. 
Demosth. 56, 4) ; but the middle is also used with the meaning ' to 
appoint as' or 'to,' dVoo-ToAous 1 C. 12. 28, eis opyrjv 1 Th. 5. 9 = Att. 
iroirjcrat, KaTacrTyjcrat, Ionic delvai (H. 1. 2 ov edr/Kev KX.rjpovup.ov). — 
ZiryKaXeiv and -o-dai (' to call to oneself) are correctly distinguished, 
if o-vyKakeiraL is read instead of o-vyKaXel with DF in L. 15. 6 and 
with ADEGr al. in verse 9.— Between ali-eiv and anela-Qai old gram- 
marians draw the distinction, that a man who asks for something 
to be given him, intending to give it back again, aireiTou ; but 
alrdo-Oai is applied generally to requests in business transactions, 
and this is its regular use in the N.T. Mt. 27. 20, 58, Mc. 15 (6), 8, 
43, 1 L. 23. 23, 25, 52, A. 3. 14, 9. 2, 12. 20, 13. 28, 25. 3, 15 ; the 
active is the usual form for requests from God, but the middle is 
used in A. 7. 46, 2 and there is an arbitrary interchange of mid. and 
act. in Ja. 4. 2 f., 1 Jo. 5. 14 f. etc.; the request of a beggar, a son 
etc. is naturally ahelv, A. 3. 2, Mt. 7. 9 f. (cp. A. 16. 29, 1 C. 1. 22). 
'AiraiTelv, Trapairelcröai are the Attic forms ; i^rjTrjcraTO L. 22; 31 
(Attic uses both -elv and -elo-Qai). — IIap6xop.evos o-eavTov tvttov Tit. 2. 7 
is contrary to classical usage (-n-ape^v), but Col. 4. 1 tt)v «ro-r^ra roU 
SovXols Trapkyzo-Oe is not (C reads -ere), nor is irapefy] L. 7. 4, but the 
active is certainly unclassical in Trapefyov cpiXavOpanriav A. 28. 2, 
ipyao-iav 16. 16 (-ero C ; in 19. 24 A*DE read -\e, -x""o is the usual 
reading : the passage appears to be corrupt), although Homer uses 
(/hAo-iv/to. irapao-xdv. — On the whole the conclusion arrived at must 
be that the New Testament writers were perfectly capable of pre- 
serving the distinction between the active and middle. 

2. The middle must occasionally be rendered by 'to let oneself,' 
cp. § 54, 4 for the pass., in the sense of occasioning some result, not 
of allowing something to take place. Keipao-Öcu, ^vpao-dat 1 C. 11. 6; 
ö'^eAoi/ Kai aTTOKoxj/ovTai G. 5. 12 'have themselves castrated,' as in 
Deut. 23. 1, whereas Trepirepweo-Oai is treated as a passive (let in the 
sense of allow). 'EßaTTTLO-dpLrjv in A. 22. 16 ßdirTLcrcu Kai cnroAoiKrai 
( 1 C. 6. 11 aTreXovo-ao-Oe) may be explained in the sense of ' occa- 

1 In Mc. 6. 22 atrrjaov (N -crai), 23 alrrjaris, 24 alr^ufiat, 25 777-170-0x0 (D clTrei'), 
there is a nice distinction, since the daughter of Herodias, after the king's 
declaration, stands in a kind of business relation towards him. Cp. Mt. 20. 
20, 22, Mc. 10. 35, 38. 

2 A. 13. 21 77V?7o-apTo ßa<Ti\£a, Kai ZSuicev avrois 6 debs k.t.\. probably does not 
come under this head. Cp. 1 Sam. S. 5. 

§55- 2- §56- 1-3.] THE TENSES. PRESENT TENSE. 187 

sioning'; but in 1 C. 10. 2 -uravTo of BKLP appears to be wrong 
and -t(jQi](To.v to be the only right reading. In L. 11. 38 one 
minuscule codex (700 Greg., 604 Scriv.) exhibits the correct 
ißaTTTva-aro instead of -a-drj. 


1. It was shown in a previous discussion in § 14, 1 that every 
tense has generally speaking a double function to perform, at least 
in the indicative : it expresses at once an action (continuance, 
completion, continuance in completion), and a time-relation (present, 
past, future), and the latter absolutely, i.e. with reference to the 
stand-point of the speaker or narrator, not relatively, i.e. with refer- 
ence to something else which occurs in the speech or narrative. 
In the case of the future, however, the function of defining action 
has disappeared from the Greek of the N.T., and the moods of this 
tense (including the infinitive and participle) were originally formed 
to denote a relative time-relation (with reference to the principal 
action of the sentence), and only in so far as they were necessary 
for this purpose : hence it happens that a future conjunctive l and 
imperative never existed. The moods, with the exception just 
mentioned, are not used to express the time-relation but only the 
character of the action. 

2. The present denotes therefore an action (1) as viewed in its 
duration (its progress), (2) as taking place in present time. In the 
latter case the present may be regarded as a point of time, with the 
addition of the time immediately preceding and succeeding it, as in 
ypu<f><i} ' I am writing (now),' or again the time included on either 
side of the present moment may be extended more and more, until 
it finally embraces all time, as in 6 0eos ea-nv. Again, the idea of 
repetition may be added to, or substituted for, that of duration, so 
that what in itself is not continuous, is yet in virtue of its repetition 
viewed as in a certain measure continuous : this is more clearly seen 
in the case of past time : '4ßa\ev ' he struck,' eßa\\a> ' he struck 
repeatedly or continuously.' A distinction between the present 
strictly so called, denoting something which really takes place at 
the present moment, and the wider use, can only be made by 
means of a periphrasis, Tvy\dvia ^ (this however is not found in 
the N.T., § 73, 4). 

3. Since the opposite to duration is completion (expressed by the 
aorist), the present may be used with sufficient clearness to denote, 
as such, an action which has not yet reached completion, where we 
have recourse to the auxiliary verb 'will.' Jo. 10. 32 5ta ttoiov airrwv 
epyov €/ne Xiddfrre (' will ye stone me ? ') : G. 5. 4 ohives eV vofxip 
StKaiovcrde ' would be justified': Jo. 13. 6 viVreis. The imperfect 
more often has this (conative) meaning. 

J It is true that instances of it are found in the mss. of the N.T., e.g. 1 C. 
13. 3 Kavdri<7<j)fj,ai CK. 

lS8 PRESENT TENSE. [§ 56. 4-6. 

4. Since in the case of actions viewed as completed, there exists 
for obvious reasons no form to express present time (equivalent to a 
present of the aorist), the present tense must also in certain cases 
take over this function as well (aoristic present, Burton, N.T. Moods 
and Tenses p. 9). If Peter in A. 9. 34 says to Aeneas laVou ere 
'Iiprovs X/ho-tos, the meaning is not, ' He is engaged in healing thee,' 
but ' He completes the cure at this moment, as I herewith announce 
to thee": under the same category comes -apayyeXXw croi k.t.A. in 
A. 16. 18 (the expulsion of a demon), where in a similar way an 
action is denoted from the stand-point of the actor and speaker as 
being completed in the present, which the narrator from his own 
point of view would have expressed by the aorist as completed in 
the past, iraprjyyeikev. 1 With this belongs dvird^tTai ' sends greet- 
ing': to which the corresponding term is always ucr-acraa-e« 'greet.' 

5. The present also habitually takes an aoristic meaning, where 
an interchange of times takes place, and it is used in lively, realistic 
narrative as the historic present. This usage is frequent, as it is 
in classical authors, in the Xew Testament writers of narrative, 
except in Luke's writings, where we seldom meet with it. Jo. 1. 29 
r*/ i—avpiov ßXkirci . . . /ecu Aeyei ... J 35 T/7 iiravpiov ttciAiv eicrT?//eei 
(pluperf. =impf. 'was standing')... 36 /ecu... Aeyei...; 44 ry k-avpiov 
i)de\i]crev i^tXdelv ... /ecu evpuncet; thus the tendency appears to be 
for the circumstances to be denoted by past tenses, and the principal 
actions (which take place under the circumstances described 2 ) by 
the present, while the final results are again expressed by the 
aorist, because there realistic narrative would be unnatural: 40 rjkduv 
uvv Kai etSav ... /eat ... e/xeirav. Even apart from narrative the present 
is used in a similar way: ibid. 15 Twdi/v/s p.aprvpel -repl avTov /ecu 
KCKpayev ( = /epd£ei). 

6. "H/ew, as is well known, has a perfect meaning (L. 15. 27 etc.) ; 
(jrapeLo-Lv 'are come hither' A. 17. 6 is a present used for the perfect 
of (mother verb [Burton, p. 10], as dirk^u is used for d-ei'Anc/xi in 
Mt. 6. 2). Further ukouw is ' I hear' in the sense of ' I have heard ' 
(L. 9. 9, 1 C. 11. 18, 2 Th. 3. n, as in classical Greek ; an equivalent 
for it would be Aeyercu, where the use of the present is no more 
remarkable than in d/eoiVrcu 1 C. 5. 1). 'Aßi/ew in A. 25. 11 beside 
d£ioi' davaTov Tre7rpa\d n (and following ov8ti> rj8iKi]Ka in verse io) 3 
means ' I am guilty,' ' am a criminal ' as in Attic (this use occurs 
here only ; in Mt. 20. 13 the word has the ordinary meaning of the 

1 Burton quotes in this connection (besides A. 26. 1 (-n-LTpi-n-erm etc.) 6.<pievTai 
aov ai afxapriai Mc. 2. 5, Mt. 9. 2 etc., and rightly, at least if this reading is to 
be trusted (cp. § 23, 7). 

2 Rodemeyer, Diss, inaug. Basel 1SS9 (Präs. histor. bei Herodot. u. Thukyd.) 
endeavours to show that the historic present expresses something which takes 
place at or directly after a point of time already indicated : this theory holds 
good up to a certain point. Mt. 2. 13 ävaxupvGÖ-VTuv a\TÜiv ioov dyyeXos Kvplov 
Qaivcrai (Win.) ; Herrn. Vis. i. 1. 3 öiaßäs t)\&oi> ... ical tiOQ t<x ybvara. 

■'" Thus it appears that the perfect remains where there is a reference to 
particular trespasses ; the present is only used of the general result. 

£56.6-9.] PRESENT TENSE. ^9 

pres.); also 6 vlkwv in Ap. 2. 7 etc. may remind one of the Attic 
use of vlku) for ' I am a conqueror,' while -/Wem in A. 26. 31 refers 
to Paul's whole manner of life and his Christianity in particular. 
Throughout these remarks we are concerned only with the special 
usage of individual verbs, and not with the general syntactical 
employment of the present. 

7. Presents such as those in L. 15. 29 roo-av-a errj 8ovXevu> croc 
(cp. 13. 7 iciov rpi'a err) cic/>' ov ep^o/xat, Jo. 8. 58 ei/U, 15. 27 eo-re, and 
many others) are by no means used for perfects : on the contrary, 
no other form was possible, because the continuance or the recur- 
rence of the action in the present had to be included in the 

8. Present for future. — The classical language is also acquainted 
with a (lively and imaginative) present for future in the case of 
prophecies (e.g. in an oracle in Herodot. vii. 140 f.), and this present 
— a sort of counterpart to tbe historic present — is very frequent in 
the predictions of the X.T. It is not attached to any definite verbs, 
and it is purely by accident that ep\ appears with special fre- 
quency in this sense : Jo. 19. 3 ectv ereupderco tottov, ~d.Xw epy^ofiai 
kcu 7rapaXqp\Lopai vpds ; so esp. 6 ep\6pei'0<; 'He who is to come' (the 
Messiah) Mt. 11. 3, cp. 11. 14 'HAias peAAwv Ipy/a-ctai, 17. 11 'HA. 
ep^e-cu. But we find equally well: Mc. 9. 31 6 vlos tov dvdpuj-ov 
—apaöYöorcu (=peAAei —apaöiöocrdat Mt. 17. 22)..., koll d~OK~€vovcnv 
avTov, Mt. 27. 63 perd rpeis vypepas eyei'popcu : Herrn. ^ is. Ü. 2. 4 
dc/>tevrai. The present is also used without any idea of prophecy, 
if the matter is mentioned as something that is certain to take place, 
so that peAAei (epxeo-Oat) could have been used : e.g. in Jo. 4. 35 

€Tl TiTpdpqVOS £<T~l KO.I O depiCT/lOS £/3\'€TCU, Mt. 24. 43 ~ OlOt (fivXaKlj 6 

kActtttj? epxercu, and repeatedly in ew? ep^opcu (-erat), see § 65, 10; 
in other cases eAeixro/zcu is necessary, Mt. 24. 5, Mc. 12. 9, 13. 6 etc. 
But verbs of going and coming when used in the present also have 
the meaning of being in course of going (or coming), in which case 
the arrival at the goal still lies in the future : Jo. 3. 8 ~68ev ep^ercu 
Kai ttov vTrayei, almost = is about to go, 8. 14 ~66iv rjXdov kcli — ov 
VTrdy<i> ... -üödev ep^opat ko.1 —ov {•—.; SO — ov v—dycj -ets in Jo. 14. 4 f., 
-opevopai ibid. 2, 12, A. 20. 22 : dvaßaLVopev Mt. 20. 18, Jo. 20. 17 
(but in Jo. 7. 8 ovk dvaßaivw the present is used for future). 

9. Present used to express relative time (cp. 1). — It is a well- 
known fact that when the speech of another person is directly 
repeated the tenses refer to the points of time of the speech itself, 
and that in the classical language the form of oratio obliqua is 
frequently assimilated in this respect to that of direct speech. In 
the N.T. the use of oratio obliqua is certainly not favoured, 
and that of oratio recta predominates ; but it is noteworthy that 
subordinate sentences after verbs of perception and belief are assi- 
milated to oratio recta, and the tenses therefore have a relative 
meaning. Thus Mt. 2. 22 d/<oi'cras on Ap\«Aaos ßacnXevei : Jo. 6. 24 
efSev 6 oxAos 6V1 'Iv/crovs ovk IcrTtv exet. This practice also appears 
in the classical language, but not as a general rule, whereas in the 

I90 PRESENT TENSE. [§ 56. 9. § 57. 1-3. 

N.T. the rule is so far established that the imperfect in such 
sentences must in most cases be rendered by the pluperfect, since 
it refers to an earlier time than that spoken of, § 57, 6. Still we 
have Jo. 16. 19 eyvm on -qdeXov (v.l. 7]p.eXXov) avrbv eputrav, with 
which cp. the instances of pluperf. for the usual perf. in § 59, 6; 18. 
32 yp.eXXev after o-rjjxaivuiV, cp. § 61, 2 (A. 22. 2 a/coio"avT€S on irpoo-- 
ecfiwvei, but the better reading is TTpoo-^navel DEH). The aorist 
however may be used : Mc. 12. 12 eyv<x>o~av ort e^ei' (Mt. 21. 45 has 
OTt Aeyei = e'Aeye). 


1. The distinction between continuous and completed action is 
most sharply marked in the case of the imperfect and aorist indica- 
tive, and moreover this distinction is observed with the same 
accuracy in the N.T. as in classical Greek. 

2. Repetition, as such, is regarded as continuous action, and 
expressed by the imperfect (cp. § 56, 2), as also is action left 
uncompleted (Imperf. de conatu., cp. § 56, 3). Exx. : (a) A. 2. 45 to, 
KTi'i/xara eirtTrpao-Kov kuI 8iep,epi(ov avrix iravLv ; this frequently hap- 
pened, although it is not stated that it took place or was carried 
into effect in every case (aorist), cp. 4. 34, 18. 8, Mc. 12. 41 ; 
(b) A. 7. 26 (TvvrjWacrcrev auToi's eis elprjvrjv, 'sought to reconcile,' 
26. 1 1 ?/i/ay/<a£bv ßXaircprj/xüv, where however the imperf. also 
expresses repetition (like edlwKov ibid.), L. 1. 59 tKaXow airro 
Za^apiav 'wished to call him Z.,' Mt 3. 14 8ieKwXvev 'wished, or 
tried to prevent Him' (A. 27. 41 eXvero 'began to be broken up'). 

3. The action is further regarded as continuous if the manner of 
it is vividly portrayed. H. 11. 17 Trio~Tei Trpoo-ev^vox^v 'Aßpaa/x. tov 
'IcraaK ..., /ecu tov p.ovoyevrj -n-poo-e^epev k.t.X., a supplementary char- 
acterization of the peculiar feature of this instance. A. 5. 26 fjyev 
aureus ov \iera. ßias, cp. 27 ayaycWes 8e (conclusion of the act) avrovs 
ecrrrjo-av ; 41 ewopevovro x<upovT€s aVo Trpo<TioTrov tov o-vve8piov (it was 
here unnecessary to denote the conclusion of the act); 15. 3 8ir/pxovTo 

. .. eK81.1-jyovp.evo1 tyjv eTnrrrpofjiijv twv edvwv, /cai erroiovv (everywhere) 
Xapäv p.eydXi]v ... (conclusion given in 4 Trapa.yev6p.evoi 8e) ; 15. 41 is 
similar; on the other hand, we have in 16. 6 StfXOov 8e rrjv Qpvylav 
(where there is no description). See also 21. 3 errXeopev et's Sv/nav, 
/cat KaTrjXßo/j.€v eis Tvpov, where (as in 18. 22, 21. 15) the description 
consists in the statement of the direction (eis ...) ; cp. 21. 30 cIXkov 
e'£a) Tou lepov, ko! evOeuiS ei<Xeto-dr)crav at dvpai {i.e. after the first action 
had been completed, so that there is an indirect indication of its 
completion), whereas in 14. 19 the reading eo-vpav (instead of ea-vpov) 
e£co -njs 7roAecüs is preferable, as otherwise the completion of the act, 
which certainly was carried out, would be in no way indicated. 
Occasionally, however, we do find an imperfect contrasted with a 
subsequent verb denoting completion, where the descriptive clause 
has not previously been expressed: 21. 20 e86£<i(ov rbv 6e6v, et7r6v re 
(' they glorified God for a long time and in varion« ways, till finally 

§57-3-4.] IMPERFECT AND AORIST. 191 

they said '); 18. 19 SieAeye-ro tois 'lovSauoLs (D, the other MSS. wrongly- 
read -\e£aro or -Xk^dyj), the conclusion is given in 20 f. (but in 17. 2 
[oieXeyero HLP is the right reading, see § 20, 1] the descriptive 
clause is present, and repetition is also expressed by the imperf.). 
The most striking instance is 27. 1 f. 7rape8t8ovv . . . «VißavTes 8e, 
where the aorist (Lat. tradidit) must be considered to be required by 
the sense. — In the Pauline Epistles cp. 1 C. 10. 4 «riov (the fact), 
(TTLVov yap en Trvevp.aTiKr}s ireTpas (the manner), 10. II ravra tvttlkCjs 
(rvveßaivev (manner), cp. with 6 raura tvttol rjfj.wv eyevrjdyjo-av (result). 

4. There are certain verbs in Attic, which in virtue of their 
special meaning to some extent prefer the form of incompleted 
action : that is to say, the action in question finds its true end and 
aim in the act of another person, without which it remains incom- 
plete and without result, and the imperfect is used according as this 
fact requires to be noticed. To this category belong KeXeveiv, dgiovv, 
7rapaKiXevecrdai, ipcorav, -rrkp.-Ki.iv, onroo-reWeiv and many Others. In 
the N.T. KeAeueiv like TrpocrrdTTeiv and irapayyeWetv always denotes 
an authoritative command, the accomplishment of which is under- 
stood as a matter of course : hence we have cKeAcucrev (as in Attic in 
this instance) like irpoo-kra^zv, Trap-i]yyeiXtv; 1 likewise always eVe/A^ev, 
a7reo-TeiAev ; on the other hand, rjpa>ra (kTr-qp.), with the meanings 
' questioned ' and ' besought,' is found as well as ?}pwT?/o-€v (eV?;p.), and 
■7rapf.Ka.Xa (for Att. TraptKeXeveTo, which does not appear) as well as 
irapeKaXeo-ev (Traprjvei A. 27. 9, literary language, i)£tov 15. 38, ditto), 
but used in such a way that the choice of the one tense or the other 
on each occasion can generally be satisfactorily accounted for. Thus 
in A. 10. 48 7]pwTrjcrav is necessary, because the fulfilment of the 
request which did take place is only indicated by means of this 
aorist, 23. 18 is similar, whereas r/pwra 'besought' in 3. 3 is used 
quite in the manner above indicated ; ' asking a question ' is gener- 
ally expressed by rjpwr-qo-ev (as it is in Attic or by r/pero), but in 
Mc. 8. 5 by ?;pwTa, 23 lirrjpioTa, 29 ditto (which might also be 
employed in other places where the aorist is found, e.g. 9. 16); 
-rrapeKaXeo-av Mt. 8. 34 of the Gergesenes who besought Jesus to 
depart (L. 8. 37 has rjpwT^a-av and Mc. 5. 17 ijp^avro TrapanaXzLv, but 
D TraptKaXow), where the fulfilment of the request necessarily 
followed ; Mt. 18. 32 ä<f>f)K<i o-ot, «tciSt) TrapeKaXeo-ds p.e (the mere 
request was sufficient), 26. 53 irapaKaXko-ai tov irarkpa (ditto), A. 8. 31 
TrapiKaXecrev dvaßdvra Kaötcrat (the fulfilment is not mentioned as 
self-evident) ; on the other hand TrapetcdXeL appears in A. 27. 33, 
L. 8. 41 etc. 2 In Jo. 4. 52 kirvQzro is incorrectly used, and the 
correct form kirwddvero has weak attestation (in 13. 24 TrvQkvBai 
[which should strictly be Trvvddvto-dai] is only read by AD al., while 

1 'EictXevov (paßdifeiv) only occurs in A. 16. 22 (of magistrates), probably to 
express repetition and a longer continuance of the action, which also accounts 
for the present paßdi^eiv, cp. § 58, 3 ; the conclusion is given in 23 7roX\as de 
eiride'vTes ir\r)yds. For TraprjjyeWev L. 8. 29, cp. infra 5. 

2 Also in A. 16. 5 frape/cdXei might have been expected, since the issue is 
expressly mentioned in ko.1 7rape/3idcraTO r/yuas. In verse 39 also the imperf. 
might have been used. 

192 IMPERFECT AND AORIST. [§ 57. 4-6. 

other MSS. have a quite different reading). On the other hand 
iTrwddvero is found correctly in Mt. 2. 4, L. 15. 24, 18. 36, A. 4. 7, 
10. 18 (BC IttvOovto), 21. 33, 23. 19 f. — (Another instance of the 
aorist in John's Gospel, onrrjXdev eis tt)v FuAiAcuai' 4. 3, is at least 
remarkable, since the aorist denotes the journey as completed, 
whereas in verses 4 ff. we have an account of what happened on the 
way, and the arrival in Galilee is not reached till verse 45. With 
this may be compared A. 28. 14 ijXdafiev, cp. 15, 16.) — With verbs 
of requesting is associated Trpoa-Kvvetv, which when it has this mean- 
ing is used as regularly in the imperfect (Mt. 8. 2, 9. 18, 15. 25 
n*BDM), as it is in the aorist with the meaning of ' to do homage ' 
(Mt. 2. 11, 14. 33 etc.). 

5. For the interchange of '4\eyev (-ov) and elirev (-av, -ov) the follow- 
ing rules may be laid down. The individual utterance of an 
individual person is principally denoted by the aorist ; on the other 
hand, the utterances of an indefinite number of persons are regularly 
expressed by the imperfect, which may also be thought to look 
forward to the conclusion given by the speech of the leading 
person, which is subsequently appended: A. 2. 13 with which 
cp. 14. 1 "EAeyev is sometimes used before speeches of greater length, 
as in L. 6. 20 before the Sermon on the Mount, after a series of 
descriptive clauses in the imperf. in verses 18 and 19 (Mt. 5. 2 intro- 
duces this Sermon with the words e6Y6WKev Aeycov) ; again there is 
a tendency to link on additional remarks to the preceding narrative 
by means of ko.1 eAeyev or e'A. Se, Mc. 4. 21, 24, 26, 30, 7. 9, 20, 
L. 5. 36, 6. 5, 9. 23 and passim, while in other passages ef-ev is 
used, L. 6. 39, 15. 11 etc. The words introduced by this verb may 
always be looked at in two ways : they may be viewed as a sentence 
which has been delivered or a speech that is being delivered, and so 
Thucydides introduces his speeches sometimes with eAeyev, some- 
times with e'Ae£e. Cp. also the use of Ae'ywv (not eiVuiv), so frequently 
added to another verbum dicendi. 

6. The imperfect in statements after verbs of perception (and 
believing) is generally relative in so far as it refers to a time previous 
to the time of perception, and must consequently be rendered by the 
pluperfect ; synchronism (of the thing perceived and the perception 
of it) is similarly expressed by the present, § 56, 9. It is evident 
that the imperfect here still preserves its sense of continuous action. 
Mc. 11. 32 €i%ov tov 'Iwdvrju ort 7t/do^)?;t>js rjv, had been ; A. 3. 10 
en-eyivoKTKOV 0V1 rjv 6 KadSj/Aivos ; 15. 3 ySecrav tov irarkpa avrov (who 
was dead) 6V1 "EAAr;v VTrrjp\ev. In Jo. 6. 2 2 i8wv (v.l. etSov) ort qvk 
i/v and 9. 8 ol Öew/Doui'res avrbv to irpoTepov 6V1 TrpocraiTrjs jjv, the words 
ISelv and deiopeiv themselves refer back to the same previous time to 
which the dependent clause refers ; as this time remains unexpressed 
in the participles, it had to be expressed in the dependent clause by 
the imperfect. — For exceptions, see § 56, 9. 

1 Jo. 11. 37 rives 8Z ii- avrQiv eiTrov (after £Xe7oe oi 'Iot'Scuoi 36 ; AKTI also have 
fKeyov in 37). 

§57-7-9.] IMPERFECT AND AORIST. 193 

7. The aorist, which denotes completion, may also express the 
entering upon a state or condition, when it is known as the ' ingres- 
sive aorist'; strictly speaking, verbs of this class contain in themselves 
an inchoative meaning besides that denoting the state : the former 
meaning becomes prominent in the aorist, and the latter mainly in 
the present (the former meaning also, though rarely, appears in the 
present, as in yr)pdcn<a> ' become old ' beside yrjpdw ' be old ' : in Latin 
these inceptive presents are wide-spread). Thus Zo-iyijo-ev A. 15. 12 
'became silent,' k-n-Tu>xzvcrev 2 C. 8. 9 'became poor,' R. 14. 9 Zfao-ev 
'became alive.' 

8. An action which the use of the aorist shows to have been com- 
pleted (to have taken place), need not by any means have been a 
momentary action, but may have actually extended, and even be 
expressly stated to have extended, over any length of time, provided 
that it is only the completion and the conclusion of it which is 
emphasized, this being just the force of the aorist. 'Eßloj 7roXXd eV?7, 
but then he died. "Errj 8vo fjp£e, but then he was deposed. It is 
different with koucws Ify (where the manner of life is emphasized : 
the conclusion is left out of consideration) ; and Si/ccu'cus >/px e (^ 6K - 
fjp£e would be in most cases ingressive, 'he came by his office 
honestly '). The same explanation applies to A. 28. 30 e/xeivev Suriav 
oXrjv kv ISuo pao-dajpiaTL (but then this condition of things came to an 
end), 14. 3 lkolvov \p6vov Sierpupav (until the end of their stay, nar- 
rated in verses 5 and 6, the length of which is summarily indicated 
in verse 3), 1 18. n kKdQiuev (Paul 'sat' i.e. stayed in Corinth) 
iviavrbv kcu p:rjvas e'£ (until his departure). In all these cases the 
only reason for the aorist is to be found in the added note of the 
length of the stay, which necessarily suggests the end of the 
particular state of things; Luke even says (A. 11. 26) lyevero olvtovs 
eviavTov oAoi' crvva)(dr)vai ev Ty eKKXi](rt,a, although crvvdyecrdat ('to 
assemble themselves ') is certainly no continuous action, but only 
something repeated at regular intervals. But repeated actions, if 
summed up and limited to a certain number of times, may also be 
expressed by an aorist, as in rph ipaßSlcrdrjv 2 C. 11. 25, and this 
tense may likewise be used where the separate actions of different 
persons are comprehended in a single word, 7ravTes yap £k tov irepia-- 
o-evovros avrots eßaXov Mc. 12. 44, since in a comprehensive statement 
of this kind the idea of the individual actions which succeed each 
other becomes lost (previously in 41 we have ttoXXoI ttXovo-iol eßaXXor 
TToXXd). — If the aorist of a verb like p\ivuv is used without any state- 
ment of the duration of time, then it denotes merely the fact that 
the stay took place, as opposed to departure : Jo. 7. 9 ep-eivev ev rrj 
TaXiXaL<x = ovK dveßrj et's 'lepocroXv/AU, 10. 40 e/xetvev eKet 'He settled 
down there,' without (for the present) returning to Judaea (B e/xevev). 

9. The meaning of past time, which generally attaches itself to 
the aorist, is lost in the case of the so-called gnomic aorist, which 

1 On the other hand, we have in 14. 28 dUrpißov xpwov oük oKlyov, where there 
is no reference to a definite length of time ; cp. 16. 12, 25. 14. 


194 IMPERFECT AND AORIST. [§57. 9-10. §58. 1-2. 

has greater emphasis in a general statement than the present which 
is ecpially possible. The latter, since it only calls attention to the 
repetition of an event on all occasions, neglects to express the fact 
of its completion : the aorist, referring to the individual case, 
neglects to express the general applicability of the statement to 
each occasion, which, however, is easily understood. This usage, 
however, is very rare in the N.T., and only found in comparisons or 
in connection with comparisons (Kühner, p. 138): Jo. 15. 6 lav fit) 
Tt? fxevrj Iv Ifioi, IßX'qdi] e£w ws to kA.'/}/ao. kou l^pavOt], kui o~ way over u> 
cu'to. kcu a's to irvp ßdXXovo-iv, Kai KaUrai (all that precedes the col- 
lecting and the burning is expressed by the aorist ; so Hermas in a 
simile has Vis. iii. 12. 2 KareXeitpdrj ... l^-qylpdi] ... ei'eOi'craTO ... ovkItl 
ai/d/ceiTou dW «mj/cev k.t.A. : 13. 2 lireXdOeTO ... TrpooSlyerai k.t.A.). 
We have it also in similes in Mt. 13. 48, Ja. 1. 11, 24, 1 P. 1. 24 
from lxx. Is. 40. 7. (The case is different with Herrn. Mand. iii. 2, 
v. 1. 7, Sim. ix. 26. 2, where the aorist in the first place stands for 
a perfect [§ 59, 3], and the latter is a more vigorous mode of express- 
ing something still future, but certain to happen, Kühner, p. 121». 

10. The aorist in epistolary style, referring to something simul- 
taneous with the writing and sending of the letter, does not cease 
to refer to a moment of past time, as the time in question actually 
is past to the mind of the recipient and reader of the letter. In the 
N.T. the only instance of this use is lirepixpa in A. 23. 30, Ph. 2. 28, 
Col. 4. 8, Philem. 1 1 etc. ; on the other hand we always have 
dcnrdttTai and ypdcpw (in 1 C. 5. 1 1 lypa^a refers to an earlier letter, 
and in R 15. 15 and elsewhere to an earlier portion of the same 


1. Between the moods (including the infinitive and participle) of 
the present and the aorist there exists essentially the same relation 
as that which prevails in the indicative between the imperfect and 
aorist. They have a single function (§ 56, 1), since they express the 
kind of action only and not a time-relation. As the optative is rare 
in the N.T., and the conjunctive, except where it is related in mean- 
ing to the imperative, does not offer any special difficulties for 
discussion at this point, we treat the moods in this order: Imperative 
(Conjunct.), Infinitive, Participle. 

2. Present and aorist imperative (pres. and aor. conj.). — The 
present imperative (with which must be taken the hortatory con- 
junctive, 1st pers. plur.), both positive and negatived by /a?;, is used 
in general precepts (even to individuals) on conduct and action ; on 
the other hand the aorist imperative (or conjunctive) is used in (the 
much less common) injunctions about action in individual cases. 
(1) If the aorist is used in the first case, then it must either express 
the entering upon a state of conduct which is in contrast with the 
conduct hitherto shown, or it is used comprehensively (cp. § 57, 8) 


to denote conduct up to a final point, or again the general rule is 
specialized so as to refer to an individual case. Exx. : (a) Ja. 4. 9 
TakanriopT](ra.T€ koli irevdrjcraTe ko.1 KXavaare ... pLeTao-TpacpiJTio ... , 10 
TaizeivuidrjTt, ''become sorrowful' etc. 1 (b) Ja. 5. 7 p.aKpodvp.-qo-are 
«us t>js irapovaias tou Kvpiov, which however may also be referred to 
(ft), cp. 8 p.aKpo8vp.rj<raT€ ko.1 vp.els, o-T7]pi£o.Te t<x9 KapSias vp.S>v. 1 Tim. 
6. 20 (2 Tim. 1. 14) Trjv TrapaOrjK^v (pvXa^ov (cp. 1 Tim. 5. 21 tVa 
TavTa epvXd^ys, 2 Tim. 1. 12 (f>v\d£ai, 1 Jo. 5. 21 epvXd^are zavTa äVo 
twv eiSwAwv, 1 Tim. 6. 14 rr]p7Jcrat ... p.e\pt k.t.X., 1 Th. 5. 23), 'up 
till the end,' to a definite point, whereas we have 1 Tim. 5. 22 
creavTov ayvbv T-qpet (in all things, continuously), cp. Ja. 1. 27 äWiAov 
kavruv Trjpelv the true mode of 6pi]o-Keia. Cp. also 2 Tim. 4. 2, 5 
Krjpv^ov eTTio-Trjdi eXey^ov k.t.A.: KaKoirdOrjcrov iroiqo'ov TrXrjpoepop^a-ov, 
i.e. 'up till the end,' with reference to the coming of Christ, cp. verses 
I, 5, 6. 2 (c) Mt. 7. 6 /«) Swre tu dyiov Tots kvctLv, p.i]8e ßdXrjTe k.t.A.; 
6. 34 ju.77](ri]T6 els t^|v a^iptov (but without this additional phrase 
we have in 25 /r>), cp. 31, 10. 19, L. 11. 22, 29); 5. 39 
octtis ere pairiCei els ttjv Se^udv crioyova cron, enpe^ov aiTw Kat tt)v aAA^y, 
similarly in 40 and again in 42 tw anovvri ere 80s, ko.1 tov OeXovra 
u7to crou Saveicracrdai p.rj aVocn-pac/j^s. That the present is also allow- 
able in such cases is shown by L. 6. 29 f.: to) tvtttovtl ere hrl t?)v 
criayova Trapeze koli tj]V dXXrjv ... 7ravTi atrovvTi ere 8i,8ov, Kat aVo tov 
acpovros rd era. pr] cutout«. — (2) An injunction about an individual 

1 So also R. 13. 13 ws ev ij/xepa evaxV/J-bvus irepiiraT-qcrwixev with reference to 
the beginning and the entrance upon this state of things, cp. 12, 14. II epiira- 
reiv (and aroixeiv) when used in exhortations usually appears in the present 
(1 C. 7. 17, G. 5. 16, E. 4. 17, 5. 2, 8, Col. 2. 6, 4. 5, 1 Th. 4. 12, G. 5. 25, Ph. 
3. 16) ; but when the subject of discourse is the neiu life of the Christian 
answering to his heavenly calling, which produces a fresh beginning, then the 
aorist is introduced : R. 6. 4 IW ev KaivbTrjri faJjs wepLiraTTjaufiev, E. 2. 10, 4. I, 
Col. 1. 10 (in the similar passage 1 Th. 2. 12 the readings vary between irepi- 
■warelv and -rijaai). — The force of the aorist is clear in <poßi]6Q/j.ev odv tov debv 
(which we hitherto have not done : just before we have bpw yäp rivas aTeXets 
t£ irpbs avrbv <pbßio irXelaTa a/xaprdvovTas) Clem. Horn. xvii. 12 (elsewhere in that 
work, e.g. in chap. 11, we nearly always find (poßeladai. etc.). In the N.T. cp. 
H. 4. 1 (poßridwfxev odv k.t.X. 'let us lay hold on fear,' Ap. 14. 7 ; in Hermas, 
Mand. vii. 1 ff. (poßr\6r\Ti tov nvpiov Kai <pvXao~cre ras evToXäs ai'roO — tov 8e SiäßoXov 
fir) <poßy)9rj's — <poßr;dT]Ti de to. 'ipya tov 8taßb\ov, the aor. in all cases being used of 
the fundamental position taken up : but then in 4 we have eäv (so passim) 
64\t}s tö irovrjpbv epydaaadai, 4>oßov tov Kvpiov, and then again : (poß-qdriTi o$v tov 
Kvpiov teal fr/ffr) aiTu, Kai 'öaoi av (poßriOuio-tv clvtov — ^rjaovTai ; Mand. i. 2 irlo~Tevaov 
clvt<£ Kai (poßrj6r)Ti avTov, <poßr)6eis Se eyicpäTevaai, etc. 

2 Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 4 T-rjp-qaaTe ttjv adpKa kyvr]v ..., 'Iva ttjv \wtjv dTroXdßufiev, cp. 
4 TTjpriaavTes ... \t)ipbp.e8a fayv. Herrn. Mand. viii. 2 has first to wovrfpbv eyicpa- 
Tevov. then eyxpdTewai d-rrb irovrjplas irdcrr|s, comprehensively : the present again 
in 3 ff. up to 6 eyxpaTevffai dirb irdvTtov tovtwv, cp. 12 eäv to Trovrjpbv fir] ttoitjs Kai 
eyKparevarj dir' avrujv. So also ix. 12 8ov\eve rrj iriaTei, Kai dirb Trjs Ot^i'X'as dirb- 
o~xov. We have the aorist of the hypothetical conjunctive in Vis. v. 7 eäv ai^ras 
(pvXd^ryre Kai ev aureus iropevdTJTe (cp. the last note on irepiiraTetv) Kai epydarjerde 
aiTai . . . , diroXrifj.\f/ea6e dirb tov Kvpiov k.t.X. So too the striking uses of the aorist 
in 1 Peter must be explained by the instances in (a) or (b) given above : 1. 13 
reXeiws iXirlcraTe 'lay hold on hope,' 22 dyairijo-aTe 'lay hold on love'; 1. 17 dva- 
o-Tpd(t>Ttrre 'up to the end,' 5. 1 iroi/ndvaTe until Christ's appearing; 2. 17 
irdvTas Ttpy&aTe ' give everyone his due honour,' which is expanded in the 
presents following tt\v d8eX<pÖTrjTa dyairäre etc. 

1 96 MOODS OF [§ 58. 2-3. 

case is expressed by the present, if no definite aim or end for the 
action is in prospect, or if the manner or character of the action is 
taken into account, or again, in the case of a prohibition, if the thing 
forbidden is already in existence. Exx. : (a) Mt. 26. 38 = Mc. 14. 34 
jj.eivo.Te £)8e ('go not away,' § 57, 8) kou yprjyopeiTe fieT ifiov, L. 22. 
40, 46 —po<rev\eo-9e //.?) eureXOelv eis Treipa<Tfx6i>. Frequently we have 
vwaye, or iropevov, which indeed are often found even where the aim 
or end is stated : A. 22. 10 uvao-Tus Tropevov ('go forth') eh 
('as far as D.'), Ka/cei k.t.X., cp. 8. 26, 10. 20; Mt. 25. 9 Tropevecrde 
Trpus Tors TrwAoPi'Tas (in this and that direction, where you may find 
a seller) kou dyopdo-aTe (aim) eavrais, cp. 25. 41 (where one should 
place a comma after Ka.T-ijpap.evot) ; L. 5. 24 Tropevov eis tuv oikov o~ov 
(expressing rather direction than aim; whether he reaches his house 
or not, is beside the question), Jo. 20. 17. On the other hand, we 
have TTopevdrjTi in Mt. 8. 9 = L. 7. 8 (Tropevov in LDX ; a general's 
command to his soldiers; the goal or end is omitted through abbrevi- 
ation), 1 A. 9. 11, 28. 26 O.T. (b) 1 P. 4. 15 fii'j Tis v/iuv TracrxeT^ 
ws <{>ov€vs k.t.X.' 1 C. 7. 36 el 8e Tis o.o-\i]jxovelv ... vofii^et ..., o OeXei 
TToieiTio' oi3y_ äp.apTavef yap.eiTwo-av, cp. in the contrasted case in 37 
Trjpelv, and 38 6 yafii £wv . . . i<aXw<; Trotel Kai o fii] yap,i£wv Kpelo~crov 
TTOiijcrei. In this passage the quality of the proceedings is in question: 
unseemly or seemly — sinful or not sinful— good, better, (c) L. 8. 52 
e/cAouov ... o Se etVev fir) KXaUre, Jo. 20. 17 pi] p.ov utttov (a thing 
which has therefore already taken place or been attempted). Fre- 
quently p) <.f)oßov, (poßetcrde, L. 5. 10, 8. 50, Mc. 5. 36, 6. 50 etc. 
(Mt. 1. 20 fir] (poßrjOrjs TrapaXaßeiv is different, ' do not abstain from 
fear'); Ja. 1. 7 fir) oleo-6u> (cp. Jo. 5. 45 fir) So/cetTe; but in 2 C". 11. 
16 we have fir] tis fie 86£y, where the opinion certainly cannot yet 
have been entertained; cp. Mt. 3. 9, 5. 17, 10. 34 'do not let the 
thought arise ').' 2 — 'Ao-rrdo-acrOe is the form always used in greetings 
(even in 3 Jo. 1 5 according to n) ; the aorist is found in all the 
petitions of the Lord's Prayer, partly to express the desire for com- 
plete fulfilment, partly with reference to the particular occasion of 
the petition and the requirement for the time being : only in L. 11. 
3 do we have rbv dpTov ... 8c8ov (sD wrongly read 80s as in Mt.) yfiiv 
rb Ka8' T|(Ji€'pav (D o-i]fiepov as in Mt.). 

3. Present and aorist infinitive. — In the infinitive the distinction 
between the two forms is on the whole easy to comprehend. Oe'Xav 
is generally followed by the aorist infinitive, as is the corresponding 

1 In the corresponding passage in Mt. and Lc. Zpxov must mean 'go with me,' 
not ' come hither,' which is expressed by e'Xöe" in Mt. 14. 29, Jo. 4. 16 (and in 
the use made of the passage Mt. 8. 9 in Clem. Horn. ix. 21): cp. Jo. 1. 47 epx 01 ' 
Kal ioe 'go with me,' 1. 40, 11. 34. 

2 A special instance is cpepe, <p{pere ' bring ' (the pres. imperat. is always found 
with the simple verb, except in Jo. 21. 10 eviyKarc), which as in classical Greek 
is used for the aorist as well, there being no aorist derived from this stem. 
But in the compound verb a distinction was made : Mt. 8. 4 irpocriveyKe to SQipov 
(injunction as to what ought to be done), 5. 24 SiaWayrfdi ... Kai rbre wpbacptpe 
to 5wp6i> gov (injunction as to the manner and circumstances in which it may 
be done). 

§ 58. 3-4.] PRESENT AND AORIST. igy 

Attic word ßovXeo-Oai, and naturally so, as the wish usually looks on 
to the fulfilment ; exceptions such as ßeXw ehac, ri deXcre TrdXiv 
(Ikovciv (D -ova-at) Jo. 9. 27 ('to hear the same thing perpetually'), 
are easily explained. In the same way the aorist inf. is the pre- 
dominant form after 8vvao-0ai, Suva-ros, K«X.€v€iv etc. (c/ceAevov paß8llsiv 
A. 16. 22 expresses duration, cp. § 57, 4, note 1). MeXXtiv, on the 
other hand, in the N.T. as in classical Greek only rarely takes the 
aorist inf.: (A. 12. 6 AB), R. 8. 16 and G. 3. 23 peXXovcrav caroKa- 
\v<$>6?]vai (but aTroKo.\.vTTT(z<rdai 1 P. 5. 1), Ap. 3. 2, 16, 12. 4, where 
the aorist is obviously correctly employed, while the present if used 
in this connection goes beyond the proper sphere of that tense. In 
classical Greek the most frequent construction of is that with 
the future inf., which in the active and middle voices usually has a 
neutral meaning so far as the kind of action is concerned ; but since 
the vulgar language abandoned this form of expression (p.kXXeiv with 
a fut. inf. occurs only in the Acts, see § 61, 3), it allowed the present 
inf. to be used with the same range as the fut. inf. had previously 
possessed: juiAAet TrapaScSoo-dai Mt. 17. 22, for which we have also 
merely 7rapaScSoTai, see § 56, 8. 1 — 'EXirij^iv in the N.T. takes the 
aorist inf. (instead of the fut.), correctly so far as the action is con- 
cerned ; cp. § 61, 3. Elsewhere too the infinitives keep their proper 
force : R. 14. 21 KaXov to p.ij <£ayeiv Kpka [jLifie ttmlv olvov p.i)8e iv <S 6 
a8e X(f>6s crov 7rpocrK07rT£i means, ' it is a good thing at times not to eat 
meat, if offence is given thereby,' and the passage is not to be under- 
stood of continual abstinence. 

4. Present and aorist participle. — A participle used in connection 
with a finite verb generally at first sight appears to denote relative 
time, namely, the aorist participle to denote a past event, and the 
present participle a simultaneous event, especially as the future 
participle (like the fut. infin. and optat.) does really express some- 
thing relatively future. Actually, however, the aorist participle 
contains no more than the idea of completion ; if therefore the 
participle is followed by a finite verb, the sequence of events usually 
is, that the first-mentioned action was accomplished Avhen the latter 
took place, just as the same sequence of events is expressed, if 
instead of a participle and a finite verb two finite verbs connected by 
Kai are employed. This temporal relation, however, is not neces- 
sarily implied in either case : the phrase Trpocr€v£dp.evoL €?7rav A. 1 . 
24 = 7r/)oo-eu^avTo ko.1 etTrav = Trpo(rev£o.vTO ttVovres (cp. Mc. 14. 39) 
denotes not merely simultaneous, but identical actions. If the parti- 
ciple stands in the second place, as in Mt. 27. 4 y/xaprov napaSovs 
aTfia dOwov, or Mc. 1. 31 ijyeipev cnrn)v Kparrjcras Trjs ^€6/sos, it may 
happen, as in the second of these instances, that the true sequence 
of time is not expressed, though in reality it is self-evident. Still in 
spite of this the reading of the majority of the MSS. in Acts 25. 13 is 
not Greek, ' Ay piTnras ko.1 BepvtK?/ Ko.TrjX6ov ets Kaicrapeiav ä<T7raadp.evoi 
tov Qyjo-Tov (since the participle always, as such, expresses an accom- 

1 Also in Jo. 16. 19 -fffieWov (as K has for ij9e\ov) tpuTav (D eTrepuirrjcrai irepi 
tovtov) appears to be the better reading. 

198 MOODS OF PRESENT AND AORIST. [§58.4. §59. 1-2. 

panying circumstance, which in this passage, where the arrival is 
being narrated, cannot yet be regarded as concluded) : the other 
reading do-7rao-o/i.evoi is the correct one. 1 On the other hand, the 
present participle is occasionally used after the main verb, since the 
future participle is so rarely found (see § 61, 4), to denote an action 
which at least in its complete fulfilment is subsequent to the action 
of the main verb: A. 18. 23 e£?/A6>ev (from Antioch) hi(.p\öp.evo<i irfv 
r<iAaTi/o)i/ \wpav (i.e. koX Siyp^cro), 14. 2 1 f. wreo-Tpe^av eis TtjV 
AviTTpav ... €Tri(TTr]pi£ovTes ras ^u^as t&v p,a.6r)Twv ; 21. 2 ev/jovres 
ttXolov Sta7repwv tis <$>oiviky)v, 3 iKtlcre to ttXoIov rjv a.7roc{jopTt(6p.evov Tov 
yofiov. In these last two passages the pres. part, clearly takes the 
place of /zeAAwi' with the inf., e.g. e/xekkev dwocfiopTc^eo-dat, so that they 
are to be compared with o £p)(6p.evos = o peAAwv cp^ta-dat and ivapa- 
SlSotul = pekkei TrapaSlSoo-dai § 56, 8 ; in the first two passages the 
participle is tacked on as it were to a finite verb instead of a second 
finite verb, to denote a subsequent action which in view of the actors' 
designs and preparations is regarded as already beginning to take 
place. In the following passages the fut. part, could have been 
used: A. 15. 27 aTrea-rdXKapLev aTrayyeWovras (but cp. Thucyd. VÜ. 
26. 9 €TT€fj.\j/av ayyeAAoiras Kühner Ü. 2 121 f.), 21. 16 (TvvijX6ov ... 
ayovres. — The present participle when it stands before the main verb 
may denote something that is already past : E. 4. 28 6 kX^tttuv (he 
who stole hitherto) /x/y<6Ti /cA€7rreTW, Ap. 20. 10 6 7rAavti)v = os eVAava; 
also Mt. 27. 40 o KaTaAuwv ... /ecu oIkoSo/awv = os KaTeAues k.t.A. 
('wouldest destroy'), since it is obvious that the pres. part, like the 
pres. indie, may have a conative force (Mt. 23. 13 rots da-epxoixevovs). 


1. The perfect (as also the pluperfect) unites in itself as it were 
present and aorist, since it expresses the continuance of completed 
action : before the form KaOecrraKa for ' I have placed ' arose, this 
meaning was expressed by 4'y/o (pres.) Karacr-r^o-as (aor.), 2 and a per- 
fect like TrarXrjpwKaTe in Acts 5. 28 may be resolved into i-n-kypwcraTe 
Kai vvv 7rA?;p?7? eo-rt. In the N.T. this form of the verb is still 
constantly employed, and in a manner corresponding almost entirely 
to its classical uses : although at a subsequent period the popular 
language abandoned the old perfect, and let these forms, while they 
still continued in existence, do duty for the aorist. 

2. The present meaning so entirely preponderates with certain 
verbs (as in classical Greek), that the aoristic meaning disappears 
altogether: e.g. in Kexpayev Jo. 1. 15 a word borrowed from the 
literary language in place of the Hellenistic Kpdfa, cp. § 56, 5 ; 

1 The use of the aor. in John 11. 2 is noteworthy, fy 5k Mapta/x 17 6.\el\pa<ra tov 
Kvpiov /jLvpy, 'who as is well known (cp. Mt. 26. 13) did (or, has done) this.' 
although this story belongs to a later time and is told at a later point in the 
narrative, 12. 1 ff. ; so too Mt. 10. 4 'IcwSas 6 ko.1 axrr6v, — Ös Kai 
Trapt8wKei> avr6v Mc. 3. 19. 

2 Demosth. xix. 288. 

§59-2-3.] PERFECT. lg9 

ea-TTjKa (cp. 3), 7re77oi$a, (fjufMvyo-Kofiat is almost unrepresented, 
only in H. 2. 6, 13. 3) 1 ; also redvrjKa 'I am dead,' yXiriKa «is riva 
Jo. 5. 45 etc. ' I have set my hope upon,' = I hope, but a stronger 
form than IX-xl^u, because the continuance of the hope which has 
been formed is expressed by the perfect ; similarly veir ■eur/xai ' I am 
convinced' R. 8. 38 etc.; r/yri/xai 'I believe' or 'reckon' (class.) 
A. 26. 2 in Paul's speech before Agrippa (but in Ph. 3. 7 with its 
ordinary meaning ' I have reckoned '). 

3. Inversely, the aoristic meaning of the perfect may be brought 
into prominence and the other be made subordinate, without affecting 
the correctness of the employment of this tense. This happens in 
2 Tim. 4. 7 tov KaXbv dyuiva ?}yuivio-yuai, tov Spo/xov TeTeAe/ca, rhv 
tticttiv TerrjprjKa, viz. up till now, and the existing result inferred 
from this is Stated in verse 8 : Xonrbv aVoKeiTou p.01 6 rrjs SiKacoo-vv-qs 
cnre<£avos. In the well-known phrase ä yeypa(j>a yeypa<pa the first 
perfect has more of an aoristic, the second more of a present mean- 
ing. In the following passages the aorist and perfect are clearly 
distinguished: A. 21. 28 "EAA?ivas eicr^yayev eis to lepov Kal KeKoivw/cev 
tov äytov töVov, the introduction of these persons that took place has 
produced a lasting effect of pollution; 1 C. 15. 3 f. on Xoio-tos 
dVeöavev . . . Kal ort ird<f)r] Kal on iyyyeprai t?i ypkpa rrj rpirn-j ; 
A. 22. 15 e'er?; p,dpTV<s . . . £>v €wpaKa<s Kal r/Kouo-as, the fact that Paul 
has seen the Lord is that which permanently gives him his consecra- 
tion as an Apostle (hence Paul himself says in 1 C. 9. 1 otjk dpi 
a7rdo-ToAos; ov\l 'lyo-ovv ... ewpaKa ;), whereas the hearing (verses 7 ff.) 
is far less essential.- Only it must be borne in mind that the perfect 
is not used in all cases where it might have been used, i.e. where 
there is an actually existing result at the present time : the aorist 
has extended its province at the expense of the perfect, and here 
there is certainly a distinction between the language of the New 
Testament and the classical language. Thus Mt. 23. 2 «Vt rrjs 
Mtüücrews KadeSpas e/caöicrav ot ypap.p.arels, though they still sit 
thereon: cp. H. 1. 3, 8. 1, 10. 12 for cKaöto-ev : KeKadiKcv only 
appears in 12. 2 3 ; Mc. 3. 21 eAeyov on <=£«mi (he is beside himself), 
where D* has e^eo-Tcn-cu ; 2 C. 5. 13 e^ecmi/zev opposed to o-oxfipovov- 
p,ev ; eWr/Ka had acquired too much of a present sense to be able to 
lend itself still to a true perfect meaning, and it is for this reason 
that ' He is risen ' is never expressed by ave'o-Tr/Kev (but by yyepdy, 
which is another instance of aorist for perfect, and ly^yeprat 
Mc. 6. 14, Paul in 1 C. 15. passim, 2 Tim. 2. 8). Cp. § 57, 9 (even 
classical Greek has some similar instances of the aorist for perfect, as 

1 K4KTr)/ does not appear in the N.T., but only KTrjaatröai and Kraadai. 

2 Also Jo. 3. 32 3 ewpaice /cat tfKovae, where likewise the principal emphasis is 
laid on the seeing, but in 5. 37, 1 Jo. 1. 1, 3 we have (wp&Ka./j.ei' and &KT]K6aßei> 
in close connection, where the hearing is regarded as equally essential. 
"EwpcLKa also appears in L. 24. 23, Jo. 19. 35, 20. 18 and passim ; d/cry/coa is rare 
and nowhere found in Mt., Mc, or Luke. 

3 It is preceded by virifieive aravpöv ('I^o-oOs), and followed in verse 3 by 
avaXoyiaaade tov Toiavrr/v vTrofieixevyKOTa. . . . ävriXoyiav, the perfect being due to 
the abiding example which He offers us. 

200 PERFECT. [§ 59. 3-7. 

in the saying of Euripides : n's oiSev d to tfjv p.kv Io-tl KarOavdv 
[ = reOvdvaij, to oe £-/yi' kutw vo/JLi^erat ;). 

4. The use of the perfect instead of the aorist, in consequence of 
the popular intermixture of the two tenses (vide supra 1), appears 
undoubtedly in the Apocalypse: 5. 7 yXde kgu eüfojcpe, cp. 8. 5, 7. 14 
dpi)xa (B dirov), cp. 19. 3 : in forms, therefore, in which the 
reduplication is not clearly marked. The following perfects have 
an equally certain aoristic sense : Herrn. Vis. i. 1. 1 irkirpaKtv, 
iii. 1. 2 w7TTai n (as w(£#?7), Clem. Horn. ii. 53 Zyr/yepTai, Gospel of 
Peter 23 8e8a»/cacrtv, cp. 31. Instances in the Pauline Epistles: 
2 C. 2. 13 ecrx^Ka in historical narrative, whereas 7. 5 ecrx>/Kev (B al. 
€0"xcv) and 1. 9 ecrx^Kafxev may be explained as true perfects; 
a7iwTaAKa in 12. 17 does not seem right, coming as it does in the 
middle of nothing but aorists (eire/xif/a is read by DE, Ü7reo-TeiAa 
by some cursives) : the same perfect appears in A. 7. 35 tovtov 
(Moses) 6 #ebs apxovra d7r«rraA/<e, most probably a wrong reading 
for a7reo-TeiA€v of CHP al. Also in 2 C. 11. 25 wxßi)p,epov kv tw ßvÖcp 
-e-oh]Ka stands in connection with aorists only and without an 
adequate reason for the perfect. But H. 11. 28 irümi Trc7ron]Kev to 
-curxa is explained by the abiding institution, cp. verse 3 (iyKeKai- 
vurraL 9. 18), while 17 ■n-po<revi]vo\€V 'Aßpad/x tov 'Lxaä/c can indeed 
only be understood as referring to the abiding example offered to us. 
Lastly, yeyovev is used for lykvero in Mt. (and Apoc. Pet. 1 1 ; 
Burton, p. 43) in 25. 6 (B has eyevero). (In 1. 22 = 21. 4 the 
perfect could be accounted for, although John uses kykvtTo in an 
analogous passage, 19. 36 : there is still greater reason for yeyovev 
in Mt. 26. 56 of Christ's passion.) 

5. In general statements or imaginary examples the perfect is only 
rarely used, as also in Attic it is rare in these cases. In Mt. 13. 46 
—kirpaxtv (eVwA^crev D) 7rdvTa kgu ojyopao-ev avrov the suspicion of 
an incorrect confusion with the aorist is obvious (no aorist from 
TTLTrpdo-KU) existed), cp. Herrn. Vis. i. 1. 1, supra 4 ; the same applies 
to Ja. 1. 24 Karevoijcrev kgu aTreXijkvdev kgu evdews eVeActöeTO. But 
passages like 1 Jo. 2. 5 <"s dv Trjprj . . . TeTeAeuoTcu, Ja. 2. 10 oWts 
rqprjcrg ... yeyovev (cp. 11), R. 14. 23 etc. are perfectly correct and in 
accordance with classical usage (Aristoph. Lys. 545 6 pXv -»jkuv yap, 
Kav y 7roAios, ra^v ... y€ydp.^K€v). 

6. The perfect is used relatively, instead of the pluperfect, in the 
same way as the present is used for the imperfect after verbs of per- 
ception (cp. § 56, 9) : Mc. 5. ^^ eiSvla 6 ykyovzv avrfj, Lc. 20. 19 D 
eyvioo-av on eiprjKev (al. enr£i/ = Mc. 12. 12); similarly after a verb 
expressing emotion in A. 10. 45 e^ea-rrjo-av 6V1 €KKe\vTai. So also in 
L. 9. 36 we have ovStvl din)yyuXav ovBev wr ewpctKacrtv (D l$edo~avTo), 
on the analogy of the equivalent phrase ov8. dir^yy. 6Vt ravra 
ewpaKao-LV. Still we have Mc. 15. IO c'yivcüo-Kev 6't6 Trapaoe8u>K€icrav 
(but DHS read 7rapeoWav as in Mt. 27. 18, AE al. TrapeSwKtto-av), 
A. 19. 32 ovk rj^ao-av tiVos eveKev o-vve\i}Xv$eicrav. 

7. On the moods of the perfect it may be noticed that the 
imperative, apart from «ppwo-o eppuxr$€ (formulas in A. 15. 29, 23. 30, 

§ 6o. § 61. 1-2.] PLUPERFECT. FUTURE. 2 Ol 

but not in all the MBS.) and the periphrasis with ei/a (§ 62, 1), only 
appears in the vigorous prohibition Tre(f>Lp.w<ro Mc. 4. 39 (cp. rkdvadi 
in Homer). 


1. The pluperfect, which naturally did not outlive the perfect in the 
Greek language, is still, like the perfect, a current, though not a largely 
employed, form with the New Testament writers ; even in classical 
Greek, however, it is far rarer than the Latin or the German pluper- 
fect, just because it is not used relatively as these latter are used. 
If an action has taken place, without leaving behind it an effect still 
permanent in subsequent past time, then the aorist must be employed, 
since the pluperfect = aorist + imperfect (cp. the perf. § 59, 1). L. 16. 
20 Adfapos ißkßX-rjTo irpos tov TrvXwva avrov, ' was thrown down and 
lay': Jo. 11. 44 17 oi^is avrov crovSapiw irepieSeSero, 9. 2 2 V7S77 yap crvve- 
rkduvro 01 'lovSaiot, the stipulation even at that early date was made. 
Cp. also Acts 14. 23 TreTrco-revKUo-av (-acriv D, § 59, 6), 26 fjcrav irapa- 
8e8op.evoL : but ibid. «r/ta/pcocrav, 27 €7roir;o-av= ' had fulfilled,' 'had 

2. The usages of the pluperfect, which vary with the particular 
verb and the context, correspond to those of the perfect ; the aoristic 
meaning preponderates, e.g. in A. 4. 22 6 avOpwTros ecj> ov yeyovei to 
o-rjfietov, although the other meaning is present as well, and generally 
speaking an encroachment of the pluperfect into the province of the 
aorist can by no means take place. — A. 9. 21 wSe eis tovto iX^Xvdu 
(i.e. Paul to Damascus, the words are spoken by the Jews) is ex- 
plained by the fact that this intention of the Apostle had now come 
to an end, and therefore the perfect was no longer admissible. 

§ 61. FUTURE. 

1. The future, as was remarked above (§ 56, 1), is the one tense 
Avhich does not express action but simply a time-relation, so that 
completed and continuous action are not differentiated. The syn- 
thetic future has become extinct in modern Greek ; in the N.T. it is 
still largely used in the indicative, and is not limited to any con- 
siderable extent either by periphrasis (§62, 1, 2, 4) or by the use of 
the present (§ 56, 8). On the modal functions of the future in- 
dicative see §§ 64, 65 ; it is occasionally used in a gnomic sense (as 
in classical Greek), to express what may be expected to take place 
under certain circumstances, as in R. 5. 7 /xdAis v7rep SiKaiov tis 
aTToOaveiraL, cp. 7. 3 xPVt JiaT ^ ' eL *®- v Y*- V1 ) rai ■ so ^ ne first of these 
passages is an abbreviated form of lav SUcuos y k.t.X. 

2. The future is used relatively in statements after verbs of 
believing, to denote a time subsequent to the time when the belief 
was entertained: Mt. 20. 10 evo^ito-av on Xt'^ovrat ( = /üteAAovo-i 
Xapißdveii') • cp. the present § 56, 9 : imperf. § 57, 6 : perf. § 59, 6. 
In this case, however, another mode of expression was scarcely 

202 FUTURE. [§ 61. 2-4. § 62. 1. 

possible, and the only difference in the classical language is that 
classical Greek uses the future infinitive, which regularly has a 
relative meaning, after vop.itt.iv, instead of ort with the indicative. 
(After o->i/j.uli>u)v in Jo. 18. 32 we have ypeXXev dirodvijo-Kuv, instead 
of which /xeXXei might here be expected, § 56, 9, or the fut. as in 
21. 19 Sonderet.) 

3. The future infinitive, which like the participle and the optative 
of the future, expresses the time-notion relatively with reference to 
the principal action, has disappeared from the popular language, and 
is found only in the Acts and the Epistle to the Hebrews : after 
peXXeiv in A. 11. 28, 23. 30, 24. 15, 27. 10, after lAirtfetv 26. 7 B (the 
other mss. have the aorist), after 6/xvvvat H. 3. 18. After p.eXXeiv 
the place of the fut. inf. is taken by the pres. inf., cp. § 58, 3, rarely 
by the aor. inf.; after ZXirifav 1 , TrpoKarayyeXXeiv (A. 3. 18), ojxvvvaL 
(2. 30), -rrpoa-SoKav (3. 3), opoXoyeiv 'to promise' (Mt. 14. 7), the 
aorist infinitive is used, which preserves the nature of the action 
correctly, but surrenders the expression of the time-relation. 

4. The future participle, used as the complement of the principal 
verb (to express the aim or object) is likewise rare and almost 
limited to the Acts: 8. 27 IX-qXvdei, Trpoo-Kwijo-wv, 22. 5, 24. 17, 
H. 13. 17 dypvTrvov(TLV ws Xoyou aTroSuKrovTes ; Mt. 27. 49 ep^erat 
crwcrwv, but K* has crwcrcu, D ko.1 crweret. Its place is frequently taken 
by the pres. part., cp. § 58, 4; elsewhere by the infinitive (1 C. 16. 
3), a relative sentence (ibid. 4. 17) or some other phrase (Viteau 
§ 288). Scarcely more widely extended is the use of the fut. part, 
in a more independent position (cp. § 62, 4) : 1 C. 15. 37 to o-wpia to 
yevrj(r6p.evov (also probably R. 8. 34 6 KaraKpivdv), A. 20. 2 2 ra 
crvvavTrjcrovTa, 2 P. 2. 13 Kop.iovpt.voi pujObv dSi/a'as (almost certainly 
corrupt; N*BP read d8iKovp.evoi), Tis 6 kclkwo-cov vpds ( = os KaKoxrei) 
1 P. 3. 13, to lo-o/xevov L. 22. 49, 6 TrapaSioo-ojv Jo. 6. 64, but there D 
is doubtless correct in reading 7ra/3a3tSot's (pekkw ~apa8t86vaL **, as 
in Jo. 12. 4), H. 3. 5 tw XaXi-jd^o'op.kvoiv (a unique instance of the 
fut. part. pass.). 


1. The classical language had already made use of clpC with the 
perfect participle as a periphrasis for the perfect, pluperfect, and 
future perfect, active and passive, which under certain circum- 
stances was necessary, but the usage was extended far beyond the 
cases where that necessity existed. In the N.T. the cases where 
periphrasis is necessary include the future perfect and the perfect 
conjunctive (or optative), excluding of course 018a eü6w ; in other 
cases it is practically indifferent, whether one writes eTreyeypawro 
(A. 17. 23) or yv yeypapp.kvov (Jo. 19. 19 f.), yeypaTTTai (very frequent) 
or yeypappwov eon (Jo. 6. 31, 20. 30 ; in the next verse 31 we have 

1 ''EXirli'w irecpavepQaOat 2 C. 5. II shows the deflection of the idea of ' hope ' 
into that of ' think,' which is also in vogue in German (as in classical Greek). 


ravra. Se ykypairrai) • cp. Herm. Sim. ix. 4. 1 vivodiSvKua-av — viroSf.- 
SvKvlab rjcrav. (Periphrasis in the active is less common, as in A. 21. 
29 rja-av irpoewpaKores.) Even where the aoristic meaning of the 
perfect (§ 59, 3) predominates, periphrasis may be introduced : ov 
yap «ttiv €v ywvia. TreTrpa.yp.kvov tovto (A. 26. 26). It occasionally 
serves to produce a more forcible and rhetorical expression : A. 25. 10 
(tf*B) eoTws eVt tou /3?//i.aTos Kcu'crapos elpu, which is better than eV-r^Ka 
e7rt ... or €7T6 Tou ... ecTT)/Ka. An example of the pluperfect is L. 2. 26 
-/yv cii'tw K^\prjp.aTi(rp.kvov • fut. perf. L. 12. 52 ecrovTai 8tap.epepio-p.kvoi, 
H. 2. 12 irtTroidws O.T. ; conjunct. Jo. 16. 24 7j ■n-eTrXyjpwp.kvrj ; 
imperat. L. 12. 35 eo-rwcrav irepie^o-p.kvaL ; even the participle itself 
is written periphrastically in E. 4. 18, Col. 1. 21 ovres (-as) 0177-77 A Ao- 
r/Dtw/zevot (-ovs), here clearly to express still more forcibly the idea of 
persistence in the new condition of things (in the passage of Colossians 
Kai kyßpovs is appended; cp. Aristoph. Ran. 721 orcriv ov kckl- 
ßS^Xevp.ivoi'i, dXXd kuXXio-tols k.t.X.). A cognate instance is fjv 
Keipcevos L. 23. 53, =T£0ei/*evos (§ 23, 6). 

2. Eip.1 1 is further used to a large extent in the N.T. in connection 
with the present participle to form a periphrasis for the imperfect 
(?)v), the future (ecro/^ai), rarely the present indie. («V0> anc ^ occasion- 
ally the present infinitive and imperative (etvai, 10-di) ; this use is 
indeed especially frequent in the narrative style of Mark and Luke, 
in whose writings the periphrasis mentioned in the previous para- 
graph (1) also finds the greatest number of instances (Buttmann 
p. 268). Many examples of this periphrasis may be quoted as 
parallels from the classical language (Kühner ii. 35, note 3), and it 
may be argued that this method of expression is analogous to that 
mentioned in 1, and that at least in the case of the future it offered 
the advantage of distinguishing continuous from momentary action ; 
still, in view of the absence of an analogous development in the 
Hellenistic language, one cannot fail to recognize, especially in the 
case of the imperfect, the influence of Aramaic ( W. Schmid Atticismus 
iii. 113 f.), since that language made an extensive use of periphrases 
of this kind. 2 One cannot adduce in this connection instances such 
as R. 3. 12 O.T. ovk eo-Tiv ('there is no-one') TrotQv xPW T ° T V Ta > 
A. 21. 23 do-lv avSpes ('there are persons here') evxv v *X OVT€S ('who 
have a vow'); L. 2. 8 is also different, ko1 7rot/xeves rjo-av ... dypav- 
Xovvres xal (ßvXdcrcrovT^, since the existence of these shepherds had 
first to be noticed, and then their occupation (cp. A. 19. 14, 24). 
But even after deducting all the examples, where the imperfect of the 
principal verb could not have been used or would not have had the 

1 Not viräpxoi, which only occurs in A. 8. 16, 19. 36 in connection with a 
perfect participle. 

2 In the case of the following writings — (Mt. ), Ma, Luke's Gospel, and the first 
half of the Acts — this is no doubt due to their being direct translations from 
Aramaic originals. In John's Gospel in most passages (1. 9, 28, 2. 6, 3. 23) tjv 
has a certain independence of its own {Öirov rjv - ßoLirrl^v, 'where he stayed 
and baptized ') ; ^c kclkov ttoiwv in 18. 30 seems to be a wrong reading for fy 
ko.kottoi.6s. In Mt. cp. 7. 29, 19. 22 etc. — In St. Paul, G. 1. 22 f. ^fi-qv 
dyvoov/xevos ... dKovovres r/crav. 


same meaning, the number of instances even in the Acts is consider- 
ably large : e.g. 1. 10 arevl^ovres ycrav, 13 ycrav Karapevovres, 14 rjcrav 
TTpoiTKaprepovvTes, 2. 2 ycrav Kaüij/Aevoi etc. A periphrastic future 
appears in 6. 4 D e<r6peda -poo-KupTepotWes. (But from chapter 13 
of the Acts onwards the only further instances are: 16. 12 fjpev ev rg 
TroXei BiarplßovTes, cp. 14. 7, note 2 on p. 203: 18. 7 7) ot/aa tjv a-vvopo- 
povcra [an easily intelligible use]: 21. 3 yv dwocpopTt^opevov, see § 58, 4, 
direfyopTL^tTo could not have been used : 22. 19 ypyv (pvXaxlfav 1 ). 

Instances of the pres. indie, being written periphrastically : 2 C. 
9. 12 rj Siaxovla ov povov ecrrtv 7rpocravaTrXypov(ra ..., dAAa Kai 7repicr- 
crcwi'o-a; G. 4. 24, Col. 2. 23 2 , Ja. 1. 17, 3. 15, Herrn. Vis. i. 2. 4 
eoriv p-ev ot>v ... ?} rotavTrj ßo\'Xy ... e-upepovcra a periphrasis for the 
sake of emphasis, somewhat like Demosth. 20. 18 &rn oe...e'xov; 
.Alt. 27. 33 is most probably corrupt (Xeyopevos om. « ca D); the phrase 

ecmv ('means') p-edeppyvevopevov does not come under this head. 
The periphrases of the impersonal verbs must be given a place to 
themselves, since they are not only common in Hellenistic Greek 
(Schmid Atticism, iii. 114), but are also found previously in Attic 
(ecrTi 7T po(r?]Kov Dem. 3. 24): A. 19. 36 &eov «7Tiv (cp. 1 P. 1. 6 Seov 
[eo-Tt] ; Clem. Cor. i. 34. 2): !£ov (sc. earl) A. 2. 29, 2 C. 12. 4. — 
Infinitive: L. 9. 18 = 11. 1 ev tw etvat avrov irpocrevxöfievov. Impera- 
tive : Mt. 5. 25 icr#i euvowv (the verb is not elsewhere used in the 
N.T.), L. 19. 17 icrdt leaver lav 'e\wv : Clem. Horn. Ejd. ad Jac. 3 ev 
Lcr9i ci'Sws. Of the periphrastic conjunctive there is no instance. — 
Future expressing continuance: Mt. 10. 22 ea-ecrde picrovp.evoi, Mc. 
13. 25 01 dcrTepes earovTat Trlirrovres, Li. 5. 10 avOpumovs eery foy'pwv, 

1 C. 14. II ecrecrde els depa XaXovvres, Herm. Mand. V. 2. 8 eery 
evpio-Kopevos, Sim. ix. 13. 2 eery (popwv ; in these instances the reason 
for using the periphrasis can be recognized (cp. the periphrastic fut. 
perf.), see Buttmann p. 266 f. 

3. rtvojiai is also occasionally employed in an analogous way to 
denote the beginning of a state. 2 C. 6. 14 pr) ylvecrOe erepo^vyovvres 
J.7Tt(rrois ('do not give yourselves up to it'), Col. 1. 18, H. 5. 12, 
Ap. 3. 2, 16. 10, Mc. 9. 3 (7): the different tenses of ylvopat, are 
joined with the pres. or perf. participle. — The combination of etvat 
with the aorist participle, which is not unknown to the language 
of classical poetry, is only found in L. 23. 19 BLT 6'o-tis yv...ßXydels 
(om. K*, the other mss. have ßeßX^pevos) ev ry (pvXaKjj, where the 
reading is therefore quite untrustworthy. 3 

4. Another way of expressing imminence, besides the future, is b}' 
fj.e\\w with the infinitive, a periphrasis with which the classical 

1 This speech of Paul was delivered ry ißpaidi (puvrj. Cp. the author's edition 
of Luke's Ciospel, p. x.xi. 

-"Arivä icTTivXöyov fxev ixovtcl crcxpias, cp. Demosth. 31. II oi'5e \6you t6 irpay/j.' 
ixov earl and other similar passages with ex ul> (Rehdantz Ind. Demosth. ii. 

3 In the Gospel of Peter 23 6ea<rdßevot rju, 51 t)v reöei's, this combination is due 
to a confusion between perfect and aorist ; cp. 23 öedÜKaai. for eduKav. Clem. 
Cor. ii. 17. 7 must be emended to iaovrai do^av <5t>56i'rej. 

§ 62. 4. § 63. 1-3.] INDICATIVE OF UNREALITY. 205 

language is acquainted and which offers this advantage, that it pre- 
sents a mode of indicating imminence in past time, e.g. L. 7. 2 r/^eAAe 
reAeirrav and passim ; also a conjunctive can be formed in this way, 
Mc. 1 3. 4 öVav /xeAAvy -6 'cu ; and it serves to replace the fut. 
inf. and the fut. part, which are going out of use, and periphrasis 
is therefore generally employed in these cases, e.g. /zeAAeiv ■n-ipjrpao-da.i 
A. 28. 6, 6 Tovro yueAAcoi' Trpacrcretv L. 22. 36. In the case of a parti- 
ciple, however, the periphrastic form is of wider application than 
the simple form, since the latter (as a relative indication of time) can 
never be employed in the genitive absolute, and nowhere at all 
except where it is definitely connected with a finite verb : periphrasis 
is therefore necessary in A. 18. 14 /xeAAovro? dvoiyeiv gen. abs., 20. 3 
yevottevT/s €7ri/?ovA?}s avrio fxkkXovn di'dyevdai, Jo. 12. 4 'Ioi'Sas, 
/xeAAwv cu'tov 7rupa8 186 vai (but in 6. 64 Tis eo-riv o TrapaSaxrcDV ABC al., 
cp. § 61, 4). 


1. With regard to the use of the moods the distinction between 
the language of the New Testament and the classical language is 
considerably greater than it is with regard to the tenses, if only for 
the reason that the optative which' was disappearing (§ 14, 1) had to 
be replaced. 

2. The indicative in Greek, besides its primary function of making 
assertions about real or actual events (to which in all languages is 
attached its use in negative or interrogative sentences), has the 
further function of denoting unreality as such, by means of the 
tenses expressive of past time (since the form of the verb which is 
used to express that which no longer exists acquires the general 
notion of non-existence). The indicative, 'however, is not used in 
this way in the principal clause without the addition of the particle 
av, which differentiates such sentences from unqualified assertions 
about past time, whereas in the accompanying conditional and 
subordinate clauses, and in the kindred clauses expressing a wish, the 
indicative is used alone. 

3. In the N.T. the indicative has not only kept the whole of this 
sphere of its use, but has also enlarged it at the expense of the 
optative. In the first place in hypothetical sentences, where 
unreality is expressed, the indicative is used both in the protasis 
and the apodosis ; in the latter the insertion of av is not obligatory. 
Jo. 15. 24 el to. epya pirj e7roli]o~a ev clvtols ..., ap.apTiav ovk ei'xocrav, 
cp. 19. 11 (where «A etc. have the wrong reading e'x ets f° r "X €S °f 
B etc.), 8. 39, G. 4. 15 (av is added by k c D c EKLP); on the other 
hand av is inserted in Jo. 18. 30 el ^ fjv ..., ovk äv a-01 irape8a>Kap:ev, 
and this is the case in the majority of instances. The position of <xv 
is as near the beginning of the sentence as possible : ovk dv passim, 


oi virripkrai txv ol e/xot yyoivi^ovro (Jo. 18. 36). 1 The tense (imperf. or 
aor. ; pluperf. in 1 Jo. 2. 19) keeps the ordinary meaning of its 
action ; the imperfect in other connections is ambiguous (in the 
passage above quoted ij-ywi'if. av is ' would have fought,' which was 
meant to be regarded as a continuous or incomplete action, since 
accomplishment and result were uncertain). 

4. The imperfect indicative without äv is used in classical Greek 
for expressions of necessity, obligation, duty, possibility etc., when 
one requires to indicate the fact that in reality the opposite is taking 
place or has taken place : while the present indicative asserts some- 
thing about present time, as it always does, and accordingly an 
appeal is contained in such presents as \P y h Tpoo-i'jKei etc. In the 
former case we employ the conjunctive, it should or could be so, or 
where the possibility of anything happening is past, it should or 
could have been — a distinction which cannot be made in Greek ; the 
indicative is logically correct, since even in the case of the verb 
' should ' the obligation was already an actual one in past time (cp. 
Latin). The N.T. keeps this usage of the imperfect, but uses it 
further to denote what in classical Greek is expressed by the present 
indicative : A. 22. 22 oi5 yap KaOrJKev avrbv (yjv (KadrjKov D 2 , cp. 
§ 62, 2), they are asking for him to be put to death : Col. 3. 18 ws 
avyJKev 'as is seemly': E. 5. 4 a ovk avrJKev (v.l. Tot ovk dv^Kovra).' 2 
Elsewhere the imperfect is used correctly : ZSet in Mt. 23. 23 ravra 
«Set 7rot'?](Tai, Ka/cetva fir) dfaivcu, a frequent form of this verb (also 
used of course where it is merely the past necessity which is stated, 
ov\l Tavra eSet ['was bound'] iradtiv tov X/jicttoj' L. 24. 26) : cocpeiXov 
in 2 C. 12. 11 eyo) yap w^eiAov v<f>' vp.Q>v crvvlo-Tao-Oai, but differently 
used in 1 C. 5. 10 «ret w</>eiA.eTe eK tov Kocrpiov e£eX6eiv 'must have 
otherwise,' where in classical Greek the insertion of av is at least 
admissible, as it is in H. 9. 26 eVet e8et avrbv ttoXXo-kis ivaQdv : with 
8vvao-ßai in Mt. 26. 9 ZSvvaro tovto TrpaOrjvai, noXXov : with an 
impersonal expression with eiVcu, koAov rjv el ovk eyevvijOi] Mt. 26. 24 
(kgiAöV eo-Tt IS. 8 is different; cp. 2 P. 2. 21 3 ). 

5. The indicative when used to denote an impracticable wish in 
Attic is introduced by eWe or et yap, but it is more inclined to use 
the analytical expression eWe (el yap) wffieXov (with infinitive). From 
the latter phrase, through the omission of the introductory particle 

1 In this passage äv is wanting in B*, and stands a«fter iiywv. in fc*B mp LX ; 
similar fluctuation in its position is seen in 8. 19 Kai rbv irarepa /j.ov av ijdeiTe 
BL, rjd. äv biVA al. , where perhaps &v should be struck out with I), as it is in 
verse 39 on preponderant authority. L. 19. 23 KayCd e\6cov <ri)v t6k^ äv avrö 
Zirpa^a contains in eXddiv an equivalent for a (temporal) protasis. "Av cannot 
go further back in a sentence than 01!: G. 1. 10 Xptarov 8ov\os ovk äv rffiriv. 
— Hypothetical sentences of this kind are remarkably scarce in the Pauline 
Epistles ; in the Acts they are wanting entirely. 

2 The Attic irpocr^Ka does not appear in the N.T.; nor XPV except in Ja. 3. 10, 
nor Qeo-Ti (for which e£6v is used, ac. eVrt, § 62, 2), nor the verbal adj. in -Wos 
with rjv etc. 

3 The Attic use of the (aorist) indicative to denote what nearly happened 
(6\lyov {derjcra with infin., 6\iyov eire\a66fj.Tiv) is unattested in the N.T. 

§ 63. 5-7.] AND REPETITION. 207 

and through the auxiliary verb becoming stereotyped, there has been 
formed in the Hellenistic language the word coc/>eAe (Callimachus) or 
w(f>e\ov o<f>e\ov used as a particle to introduce a wish with the indie. 1 ; 
oc/>eAov is the form which it takes in the N.T., where the particle is 
even used (§ 66, 1) with the future to introduce a practicable wish. 
1 C. 4. 8 6<pe\ov (D C EL w<£.) ißacrikevcrare, 2 C. 11. I oc/>eAov (w</>. 

D C EFGKL) avei X eo-0e fiov, Ap. 3. 15 (w<£. BP).— But if the idea of 
wishing is expressed by a particular verb, then a distinction is 
drawn in Attic between ßov\oLfxr)v dv (a practicable wish, modestly 
expressed) and Zßov\6p,r)v dv (impracticable), whereas in the N.T. 
both these meanings are combined in «ßovX.o(i/r]v or the more popular 
word ■SjOeXov (without av). Thus A. 25. 22 iß. d/cow-ai (perfectly 
practicable), B. 9. 3 r)vyop-qv dvddepa etvai (hardly conceived of as 
practicable), G. 4. 20 ijöeAov {modus irrealis, or imperfect of un- 
reality), Philem. 13 eßovkop-qv ('would have liked,' cp. 14). So also 
Herrn. Vis. iii. 8. 6, 11. 4, Clem. Horn. i. 9 r/#eAov = ßov\oip:i]v dv. 
The classical optative is only found in A. 26. 29 (n c AB) ev^aiynqv av, 
see § 66, 2. 

6. The indicative of unreality in final clauses, which are dependent 
on another indicative of this class, is not found in the N.T. ; on the 
contrary such clauses take the conjunctive, Jo. 18. 36 ol viv^pkrai av 
01 epol r/ywvL^ovTO, Iva /x?/ Tro.pa8od(o tois 'lovSaiois, 

7. While the classical language expresses indefinite repetition 
in past time in principal clauses by äv with the imperfect or aorist 
indicative, and in subordinate clauses by the optative, in the N.T. 
the former method of expression has been transferred to subordinate 
clauses in place of the optative 2 , while there is no instance of its use 
in principal clauses. The av, which in this case is never dropped 
(e'av may be used, see § 26, 4), is placed as in other subordinate 
clauses as close as possible to the particle or the relative. Mc. 6. 56 
oirov lav (av) elcreTTopeveTO ..., ev rats dyopats Zridecrav tovs dcrdevovi'Tas: 
15. 6 D ov av yrovvTo, the correct reading, cp. § 13, 3: A. 2. 45, 
4. 35 (KaOon), 1 C. 12. 2 (ws). The aorist is by no means excluded 
(cp. for a classical instance in a principal clause Dem. 18, 219 6 
ypdcfxDv ovk av iirpea-ßena-ev), and SO we have in Mc. 6. 5Ö b /cat ocrot 
av i]\pa.vTo («BD; t/tttovto AN al.) aiVou «tw^ovto, LXX. Is. 55. II ocra 
av rjde\i](ra, Herrn. Sim. ix. 4. 5 orav IrkO^crav, 17. 3 s , Barn. 12. 2 
oTrorav KaddXev. Even particles compounded with av, such as orav, 
take part in this construction with the indicative : Mc. 3. n toL 
TTvevpara, 6Vav aiVov ZOewpovv, irpoo-timrTov, Mc. 11. 19 orav (ore AD 
al.) dxpl Zyevero, k^eiropevero e£co tyjs 7roAews, where this particle also 
denotes custom, cp. L. 21. 37. 

1 So lxx., Arrian. Diss. Epict., etc., Sophocles Lexicon ocpei'Kio. 

2 So also Lucian D. Mort. 9. 2 Svriva clv TrpoaeßXe^a. 

3 With pluperfect Sim. ix. 1.6 8rav iwi.K€KaiiK€i. 



1. The conjunctive has apparently the primary meaning of some- 
thing which should (or ought to) take place, and consequently its 
proper use is to express the will of the speaker, though in a less 
definite manner than the imperative, with which mood the conjunctive 
has close affinities. But the conjunctive, and especially the aorist 
conjunctive, also has close affinities with the future indicative. Not 
only has it to a large extent the greatest similarity of form (AvVw is 
the form of the 1st sing, both of the aor. conj. and the fut. ind., Avo-77 
is the form of the 2nd sing, of the same tenses in the middle), but in 
its manner of employment it comes into the closest contact with that 
tense from the earliest times (Homer). The future does not assert 
what is about to happen merely in point of time, but frequently also 
what is about to happen in the intention of the speaker : ßovXofiac 
Aeyeiv gives the same meaning analytically, which Ae£w gives syn- 
thetically. The conjunctive, on the other hand, actually has a much 
Avider range of employment than is contained in the primary meaning 
above-mentioned, and expresses that which under certain circum- 
stances may be the outcome of the present position of affairs : from 
this it is at once apparent that it refers in great measure to the 
future, while past time lies outside its compass. In the final de- 
velopment of the language the future has been supplanted by 6e\<o 
Iva (for which modern Greek uses 66.) with the present or aorist 
conjunctive (so that action is differentiated in future time as well as 
in past time) ; the N.T., however, is still a long way removed from 
this state of things, whereas the mixture of the fut. ind. and aor. 
conj. 1 has, in comparison with the classical language, made con- 
siderable progress. 

2. The conjunctive supplements the imperative (as in Latin and 
other languages) in the 1st. pers. plur., where there is no distinction 
from the classical language ; this also happens, but in a somewhat 
different way, in the 1st pers. sing., since an invitation is there made 
to the other person to let the speaker do something ; in classical 
Greek this conjunctive is introduced by äye and 4>epe, also by Sevpo, 
in the N.T. by a<pes (whence as in modern Greek) and Sevpo (plural 
Sevre) : Mt. 7. 4 o.(pes eKßdXu) tu Kap(f>os, A. 7. 34 O.T. Sevpo airoo-reiXw 
ere (Ellrip. Bacch. 341 Sevpo crov crrei/'ü) K<xpa), cp. Ap. 17. I, 21. 9. 
The same words may also precede the 1st pers. plur. conj. and (Sevre 
at any rate) the 2nd pers. imp.: Sevre ä-n-oKreivwpev Mc. 12. 7, Sevre 
ISere Mt. 28. 6 ; afes iSwfiev Mt. 27. 49 (where the singular form has 
become stereotyped, as happens with uye, <$>epe etc.), Mc. 15. 36 nTA 
(afare ABC etc.) = our 'let us see.' Again the conj. necessarily 

1 On this mixture in late Greek, which for instance introduces enrw croi = epu> 
0-01, see Sophocles Lexic. p. 45, Hatzidakis Einl. in d. neugriech. Gramm. 
p. 218. So in Clem. Horn. xi. 3 Kal oxirws ... Swijdrj (main clause) = 5vvr)<reTai. 
But it occurs already in the LXX., e.g. Is. 33. 24 ä<pe0rj yäp avrou 7? äpaprla, 
10. 16. 

§ 64. 2-5.] IN PRINCIPAL CLAUSES. 209 

takes the place of the imperative in the 2nd person of the aorist after 
fxrj, as in classical Greek, and may do so also in the 3rd person (not 
frequently ; classical Greek also uses conj. or imp.) : firj tis av-rov 
igovdcvrjoy 1 C. 16. 11, cp. 2 C. 11. 16, 2 Th. 2. 3. In the N.T. such 
clauses are often preceded (Mt. 8. 4 al., Mc. 1. 44, 1 Th. 5. 15) by 
öpa, opuTe, /3Ae7reTe, as well as a<£es etc., which do not affect the con- 
struction, see § 79, 4. — On [irj expressing apprehension in independent 
clauses see § 65, 3 ad fin. 

3. The future indicative takes the place of the imperative in the 
legal language of the O.T. (not a classical use) both in- positive and 
negative commands (the negative being ov), but the N.T. language 
apart from O.T. quotations does not appear to have been materially 
affected by this use. Mt. 5. 43 O.T. äya7r>jo-eis tov ttXtjo-iov o-ov, but 
in the law of Christ in 44 aycmare ; ibid. 21 O.T. ov </>ovevo-e6s etc., 
but the future is nowhere used in this chapter in independent precepts 
of Christ, since even 48 ko-eo-6e rkkzioi is modelled on Deut. 18. 13. 
Elsewhere however there are some isolated instances of the future 
(2nd and 3rd persons) : 6. 5 ovk eo-ecröe (the imperative eWe occurs 
nowhere in the N.T.), 21. 3 lav tis vp.iv eiirrj ti, kpeire, = eiVaTe in 
Mc. 11. 3, Mt. 20. 26 ovx oi'tws ecrrai lv, and then 'karat occurs 
twice again in 26 f. with v.l. «n-w (Clem. Cor. i. 60. 2 KaOapeh). 
With this is connected the reverse use of the imperative for future in 
Mt. 10. 13 {kX.6a.T0i 1) elp-qvrj vp£>v kw' avrrjv [but kcnai D] ... kirto-rpa- 
4>^to)), where the future is more natural and is actually found in 
L. 10. 6. On 6'<£eAov with the fut. ind. (in a clause expressing a 
wish) see § 66, 1. 

4. A further substitute for the imperative is afforded by <.W with 
the conjunctive (used independently ; cp. French que, class. 6Vws 
with fut.), E. 5. 33 (after aya7rdrto) ■>) Se yvvrj iva (f)oßrjrai tov avSpa, 
cp. 2 C. 8. 7, Mc. 5. 23 (see on tVa § 69, 1). This may be extended 
by dkXw. Mc. 6. 25 dkXoj ha Sws (80s Mt. 14. 8). Another substitute 
is a question in the fut. with ov (as frequently in classical Greek), 
A. 13. 10 ov Travo-rj 8iao-Tpk(f>u>v, though in this passage the imperative 
meaning is not quite clear, and perhaps a reproach is rather intended. 

5. The most definite form of a negative assertion about the future 
is that with ov \lt\, which also appears in classical Greek and is there 
also connected, as in the N.T., with both the fut. ind. and the con- 
junctive. But though the N.T. has this double construction of ov 
p.rj, still the only certain instance of its taking the fut. is Mt. 16. 22 
ov p.r] ccttcu 0-01 tovto, whereas in the other cases not only is there a 
strong similarity between the form of aor. and fut., but there is also 
a variety of readings, while in numerous passages the conjunctive is 
by its peculiar form established beyond a doubt as the correct 
reading. Mt. 15. 5 ov p,yj Tt/xijo-ei tov warkpa, but Tipyo-?? is read by 
E*FGK al. (a quotation of a saying of the Eabbis, 'need not honour'; 
in the lxx. ov /xtJ is also prohibitive as in Gen. 3. 1), 26. 35 ov firj o-e 
aira.pvqo~op,a.i (-crw/^at AEGK al.), Mc. 14. 31 ditto (-o-cu/xat «EFGK 
al.), Ap. 9. 6 ov p7 evpr)<rovo-iv (evpoxriv AP). (But Hermas has in 
Mand. IX. 5 ovStv ov pr) X/]^y, Sim. l. 5 ov //.r) irapaSexOyjo-j].) On the 



other hand the conj. is used e.g. in Ap. 2. 11 ov p) äSiKyÖy, L. 12. 59 
011 fxy e^eXdys, 13. 35 ov /x?/ iSr/re p.e. The conj. is always that of the 
aorist, whereas classical Greek also uses the pres. conj. The same 
form is occasionally used interrogatively to denote an affirmation 
(the relation between the two uses being therefore the same as 
between " ov Trpd£<a.'' and "ou 7rpd.£o);") : Jo. 18. 11 01' fir) ttiu) ai'To ; 
L. 18. 7, Ap. 15. 4 ti's ov fit) (jioßyjOij; (the classical ov fit) AaAr;o-£is; = 
'you will certainly not' = 'do not venture to' etc.). 

6. In questions of doubt and deliberation, as to what ought to 
take place, classical Greek uses the conjunctive or (more rarely) the 
fat. ind., as in Eurip. Ion 758 eiiriafiev ; 7} myiofiev ; fj ti Sp6.o-op.ev ; 
generally in the 1st person, rarely in the 3rd. The question is 
equivalent to \PV '■ & ma y De introduced by ßovXet -eo-ße (without a 
conjunction) : it is negatived by fir). The N.T. in this case practi- 
cally uses only the conjunctive (the fut. is a v.l. in e.g. A. 2. 37, 
4. 16 ; on Ph. 1. 22 see § 65, 1), which is frequently introduced by 
deXeis -ere (ßovXeo-de), and in addition to the 1st person the 2nd and 
1st persons are occasionally used, where there is more of a future 
meaning : L. 23. 31 kv tw £r)pa> ti yevyrai (yei/?ycreTai D) ; ('what will 
happen then?'), Mt. 23. 33 7rws 4>vyr)Te, 'how will (or can) you 
escape 1 ?', 26. 54, E,. 10. 14 f. 7rws ovv eTTiKaXeo-ojvrai (-o-ovTai KLP) ... 
7ra5s Se TTio-Ttvcrwcnv (v.l. -o-oi'o-iv) ... ttws Se aKOi'crwo-iv (fc* c A 2 B ; -crovo~iv 
L, -o-ovtoll n*D al.) ... 7TCüs Se K7)pv£ioo-i.v (the v.l. -oncrtv is hardly 
attested), ' how will they ' or ' can they ' : Hermas, Sim. v. 7. 3 7ro>s 
o-u>drj 6 ai'OpuTros. In these instances classical Greek must have used 
the future, which we have in L. 16. 11 f. tls mo-revo-ei ; ... Tis Swo-ei ; 
cp. 11. 11, Mt. 16. 26 rt Swo-et = Mc. 8. 37 Tt Sot (Swcret ACD al.). A 
peculiar instance is L. 11. 5 Tts e£ vfiwv e£et <£tAov, ko.1 iropevo-eTai ... 
kclI ctV?; {epel AD al.) ... 7 Ka/cetvos €171-77 (epel D), where the thought 
is awkwardly expressed (§77, 6 ; Viteau p. 10), and would have been 
more appropriately rendered by the conditional form of sentence 
(lav (f>i\os TTopevdrj etc.), and then the future would be in its right 
place in the apodosis. Cp. ibid. 11 f. The fut. is used in the 1st 
pers. in R. 3. 5, 6. 1 ti epovpev; (cp. Plato, Crito 50 b), which at least 
approximates to a deliberative sense ; and this is decidedly the sense 
of L. 22. 49 et (direct question, § 77, 2) Traru^o/iev ev pa\alpy ; (-wfiev 
GH al.). — Question introduced by 6*eAeis etc.: Mt. 13. 28 öeAeis 
o~v\\e£wfiev ; Jo. 18. 39 ßovXeo-Oe aTroXvcrio ; — The question maybe 
put analytically by the insertion of Sei (yy»j being unusual in the 
N.T.), Ti fie Sec Troielv A. 16. 30, or of 8vvao~6ai for the other sense of 
the future or conjunctive, Mt. 12. 34 xws 8vi>ao-6e Xakelv (Viteau 
p. 32). — The pros, indie, is used very rarely in a deliberative sense 
in place of the fut. ind. (§ 56, 8) : Jo. 11. 47 (Herrn. Sim. ix. 9. 1) ti 
■rroLovfiev • for which there are parallels in colloquial Latin. 1 

1 In 1 Jo. 3. 17 ßevel should be written for nevei. — Flato, Symp. 214 a vüh 
iroiovfxev is not quite a similar ease ; it is not deliberative like ri Troiui/xev ibid. B, 
but the present contains a gentle rebuke. 



1. Indirect interrogative sentences, like direct, take the delibera- 
tive conjunctive, Mt. 6. 25 p) ri c^ay^-re : and here again 
the sphere of the conjunctive is extended somewhat beyond its 
classical limits, as in L. 12. 36 -n-pocrSe^opievoLs tov Kvpiov, ttotc dvaXvay 
(-au GKX al.), cp. Ph. 3. 12 with et 'whether' Siwkw et Karakußu 
(cp. inf. 6) : elsewhere this d is followed by the fut. ind. (In 
Mc. 11. 13 D gives the reading i8dv lav [cp. inf 4] t< earn* kv avrrj.) 
In the region of past time, where the classical language according to 
rule employs the optative, the N.T. in this as in other cases retains 
the conjunctive (though not always in St. Luke, see § 66, 3): A. 4. 21 
/xi]8ev eupto-KOVTes to 7ru>s KoAao-covTai ai'-rors. The use of the fut. ind. 
(also possible in classical Greek) in such sentences is hardly attested 
by Ph. 1. 22 rt alprjcrofxai ov yvwpi^oj, where the better punctuation 
is Tt alpjcro/xaL ; (cp. § 77, 6 ; B has alprj<T(i)p:at). 

2. Final clauses introduced by t'va, Sirws, pr\ have very largely 
extended the range of their use in the N.T in consequence of the 
infinitive being expressed by a periphrasis with Iva ; we are here 
only concerned with the mood, which is in no way influenced by 
the character of tVa, whether it be a true final particle or not. This 
mood in the N.T. is generally the conjunctive, without regard to the 
right which the oj^tative formerly possessed of expressing purpose 
from a past point of view, or from that of some person introduced 
by the narrator 1 ; to a rather less extent the future indicative is also 
introduced, and just where in classical Greek it is not found, namely 
after tVa and final firj, whereas the Attic use of öVws and öVcos p/ in 
connection with the fut. ind. (after verbs of deliberating, striving, 
taking care) is not found in the N.T. With verbs of this class the 
particles used throughout the N.T. are Iva and for negative Iva pj or 
P7 : 07rws, in so far as it appears at all (never in the Apoc, only once 
in St. John's Gospel, 2 and not often in St. Paul), is limited to a 
purely final meaning and to its use in connection with verbs of 
asking (wapaKaXdv etc.). "07TW? has further lost, with the exception 
of some few passages in Luke and a quotation from the LXX., the av 
which is often appended to it in Attic Greek ; this particle was 
never even in Attic annexed to Iva and py. On p-!\ (p-i'ivore) express- 
ing apprehension, vide inf. 3. — The fut. ind. after «W occurs most 
frequently in the Apocalypse: 22. 14 tW earai . . . nal daekdwcriv 
(thus the two forms are regarded as equivalent), 3. 9 Iva -ijgovo-iv 
(-G)cri B) Kal Trpoa-Kvvqo-ova-LV (-o-oxrii' B) . . . xal yvCxriv (i* reads yvtücry 

1 The supposed optat. 5wrj in E. 1. 17 is really conjunctive (§ 23, 4 ; B gives 
correctly 8$). 

2 The passage is 11. 57, where oirus is evidently used for the sake of variety, 
since a Iva has occurred immediately before ; the same reason applies to its use 
in St. Paul in 1 C. 1. 29, 2 C. 8. 14, 2 Th. 1. 12 (but not in 2 C. 8. n, G. 1. 4, 
Philem. 6 : Iva ... 'iva occurs in G. 4. 5, 1 C. 4. 6). 


not well), 8. 3 8o5<ra (-77 BP), similarly in 13. 16 (written Acoci, 
from which the wrong rending <5wcri(v) arose). See also 6. 4, 11, 
9. 4, 5, 20, 13. 12, 14. 13. In St. Paul we have: 1 C. 9. 15 Iva tis 
(oi'Seis is wrong) Kevaxrei, 18 ivo 6y<rw, 13-3 TrapaSoi Iva KavOynropat 
(the readings -crojpai CK, Kavx/iwpai nAB are wrong), G. 2. 4 Kara- 
Sovkwrovo-iv (mAB*CDE), Phil. 2. n. Also probably 1 Th. 5. 10 
tVa grjo-o/iev (A ; D*E have £<~>/x £J ' ; the aorist ^o-oj/xev of « etc. Avould 
mean 'come to life again' as in P. 14. 9) : in this passage av is 
also omitted from an intervening clause, 'Iva eiVe ypyyopwpev eiVe 
Kade.v8(i>/iev k.-.A., cp. Ph. 1. 27 iVa eiVc a/coiuw (conj.). Other passages 
are : 1 P. 3. 1 KepSyOya-ovrai, Jo. 17. 2 Swo-et (-y n c ACG al., ookro.»«*, 
e'x?/ D), L. 14. 10 epd with v.l. in AD al. eiVj;, 20. 10 owo-oi-o-iv with 
V.l. in CD al. Swcriv. With pi') : Col. 2. 8 ßXeireTe py ... «ttgu, H. 3. 12 
ßXeTreTe fATfiroTe . . . «rrat. A special instance is that where a conj. 
after tVa (or p.y) is succeeded by a fut. linked on to the conj. by a 
Kai to denote a further result : A. 21. 24 Iva £vpij<rm>TUL (-or-ou 
nB*D'-E al.) ..., kcu yvwo-ovTai, for which xal yvuxTLv was at any rate 
possible , the same arrangement is used elsewhere in the N.T., and 
moreover in cases where the second verb should, strictly speaking, 
have been subordinated to the final particle; there appears therefore 
to be a kind of Hebraism underlying this construction, as in the 
lxx. this habit of writing the second verb in the future is very 
widely extended (Viteau, p. 81 f.). Eph. 6. 3 O.T. 'Iva ... yhyrat kou 
eery, Jo. 15. 8 tVa Kap—ov...(f>€py)Te kou yevycrecrOe (yevycrde BDLal.) epol 
p.aQyrai, L. 22. 30 (with many W.U.), 12. 58 (pyiroTe), Mt. 5. 25 
(ditto), Mc. 5. 23 (according to A), Mt. 13. 15 = Jo. 12. 40 = A. 28. 27 
O.T. (Is. 6. 10 p.yiroT€ or 'Iva pi)), Barn. 4. 3 'Iva ra^i'vy kou 7/£ei (w for 
-£7/), Herrn. Manch vi. 2. 10, Sim. ix. 7. 6, 28. 5. There is the same 
construction after an independent conj., äyopdo-wpev «cat 8wcrop.ev 
Mc. G. 37 ALA (-w/xei/ «BD, al. Supev) ; and in Hernias after an 
imperat., Vis. i. 1. 3 Xdße Kai diroSwcreis poi, Mand. Ü. I ciKaKos yivov 
kou eery ws (esto Lat.). — "Ottws äv occurs in L. 2. 35, A. 3. 19, 15. 17 
O.T. (Amos 9. 12, our text has no av) ; also in a quotation in P. 3. 4 
= Ps. 51. 6. — The present indie, after Iva is of course simply due to 
corruption of the text. 1 

3. Mrj after words expressing apprehension (<f>oßovpai etc.) is not 
final, but is akin to the py which expresses apprehension in inde 
pendent sentences such as py dypoiKOrzpov y ' it is perhaps too rude ' 
(Plato). Still from one point of view this py does border on the 
meaning of final py, since an apprehension of something eventually 
happening has for its immediate result the purpose of avoiding this 
thing. In the N.T. this py of apprehension is usually strengthened 
by 7roTe or 7T(o?: pyrrore, pyirm. On the other hand the idea of nega- 
tion in the py is so far weakened, that it is used to introduce some- 
thing which is surmised, where there is no idea of warding it off : 
accordingly in Hellenistic Greek /a7/7tot£ in a principal clause means 
'perhaps,' in a dependent clause 'if perchance,' 'if possibly': 

1 Jo. 5. 20 KL, G. 6. 12 ACF al., Tit. 2. 4 N*AF al. etc. But 4>vcnoüat>( 1 C. 
4. 6 and fyXovTe G. 4. 17 are conjunctives, see g 22, 3. 


(L. 3. 15 an indirect question), 2 Tim. 2. 25 /r/proTe Sw 1 at'rots 6 
tfebs k.t.A. If the thing (surmised or) feared is something negative, 
then the formation (as in classical Greek) is pvj ov : Mt. 25. 9 fx-frore 
ovk upKicnj NAL2, for which BCD al. have the not impossible reading 
/x. ov lit) dpK. (äpKeo-ei D). The classical construction, if the appre- 
hension has reference to something which is still dependent on the 
will, is always the conjunctive : if it refers to something which has 
already taken place or generally to something independent of the 
will, any tense of the indicative may also be used (the indicative is 
always used in reference to a past event). In the N.T. the phrase 
t))oß |A^j is found only in Luke and Paul (Hebrews) : A. 23. 10 

<f)oßi]6els (HLP evXaßr/deU) jxi] §LaQ-KO.<r6rj, cp. 27. 17, 29, 2 C 11. 3 

(fjLi'jTrios), 12. 20 (ditto), G. 4. 11 (ditto), H. 4. 1 here p/'prore 8oKr}, in 
G. 4. 11, with reference to something which has taken place, it takes 
the perf. indie. («iKo-iriana), elsewhere the aor. conj. ; clearly this 
construction <poßovp.a.L fxij was a literary and not a popular one 
(Viteau, p. 83). There is a greater frequency of dependent clauses 
with jiT|iroT€ (|j.T|ircos), which are attached to any verb, to express the 
accompanying feeling of apprehension by which the action related is 
influenced, the construction varying as before : G. 2. 2 dvedkfx^v gu'tois 
to erayyeAiov ..., /A/y7rtos eis Kevov rpkyw (conj.) 7) e'Spa/xov, 1 Th. 3. 5 
kirep^a eis to yi'cui'ai ttjv ttlo~tiv Vfiiav, //.?y77(us eTreipaaev r/xas o craTavas 
Kai eis Kivbv ykvqTai (the issue feared) 6 köVos ?}/xwj/ (L. 3. 15 with 
optat., see § 66, 3). There is a transition to final Lit) in L. 14. 8 f. 
pi) KaTauXiOys ..., p/jiroTe . . . rj K€/<A?//zei/os 2 (i')^ei D)..., nai epei (cp. 
supra 2). As in the last passage D has the fut. = conj., so we find 
this tense occasionally elsewhere : Mc. 14. 2 [irprore eo-rai (Mt. 7. 6 
v.l.), Herrn. Sim. ix. 28. 7, Mand. x. 2. 5 (e'i'Ter^eTai should be read 
for ->/tcu) ; cp. ßXe-n-eTe pvq (LiijiroTe) ?o-rai Col. 2. 8, H. 3. 12, final 
(supra 2). — Independent clauses with htj and the conj. usually have 
an imperative meaning, § 64, 2; under this head comes 1 Th. 5. 15 
opdre p,i']TLs <x7ro8oi, dAAa ... SicoKeTe (on öpare before the imperat. and 
conj. see §§ 64, 2 ; 79, 4). An exception to this is Mt. 25. 9 /x?/7roTe 
ovk dpKeo-y, vide supra. 

4. Of conditional sentences the four following forms exist in 
classical Greek : (1) ei with indicative, denoting something which is 
simply regarded as actual ; (2) läv with conjunctive, to express that 
which from the given stand-point of present time, the time in ques- 
tion being either general or a special occasion, I wish to denote as 
under certain circumstances actual or liable to happen ; (3) el with 
optative, if I wish to represent anything as generally possible, with- 
out regard to the general or actual situation at the moment (hence 
also used with reference to a position of affairs in past time) ; (4) ei 
with imperfect, aorist, or pluperfect indicative, to denote that the 
actual state of things is the opposite to the case supposed, vide supra 
§ 63, 2 and 3. The distinction between (1) and (2) is very slight in 

1 Not Soj't? optat. ; cp. § 23, 4 and supra 2, note 1. 

2 This perf. conj. also occurs in Jo. 17. 19, 23, 1 C. 1. 10, 2 C. 1. 9, and is in 
all cases easily intelligible. 


the case of et with the fut. indie, since Idv with the aor. conj. also 
generally refers to the future — lav Trea-y = si ceciderit ; the indicative, 
however, expresses a more definite expectation. — In the N.T. (3) is 
hardly represented (see § 66, 4); (1) and (2) have come into still 
closer contact, as is seen especially in the fact that e'av may also be 
joined with the indicative. We note at the outset that the dissyllabic 
form of this particle is the regular one (cp. eavrov, where Attic has 
both eavrov and avrov), whereas inversely the form eav for av is 
frequently employed in relative sentences (inf. 7), § 26, 4. Still 
'and if,' 'even if, may be «av : Mt. 21. 21 (D «at.. .eav), L. 13. 9 
(kcu eav D) etc. (see § 5, 2). Externally then the prominent dis- 
tinction between (1) and (2) is that the negative used with et is ov, 
while with lav it is (as in all Attic conditional sentences) pi), see 
§ 75, 3. But the internal distinction between the two forms has not 
been quite lost. It is only modern Greek which denotes every ' if ' 
by av ; in the N.T. et with the indicative is obligatory for all sup- 
positions referring to what has already taken place : Mc. 3. 26 et 6 
a-aravas dveo-Ti] lcf>' eairrov (which according to the speech of Christ's 
opponent must already have taken place), contrast ibid. 24 in an 
imaginary instance, lav ßacnXeta !</>' eavrov pepecrdrj. The same dis- 
tinction holds good where the two forms occur in even closer 
connection, as in Jo. 13. 17 et ravra ot'oaTe (present reality), p-andpioi. 
e<XT€ eav iroLTJTe avrd (future), or 1 C 7. 36 et 81 Tis d(x\-)]poi'eiv t~l 
ttjv irapOevov ax'-roil vopi^et (reality), eav fj vrrepaKpos (future), i.e. the 
indicative is used where a supposition is made with regard to some- 
thing now actually existing, and the only irregularity is that this 
present indicative is occasionally preceded by eav instead of et : 
1 Jo. 5. 15 eav ot'Sa/xev (the reading of K° HSwpev is not good), 1 
1 Th. 3. 7 eav vpels cm/Kere (-rjTe n*DE), whereas before the imperf. 
and aor. indie, the N.T. like classical Greek always uses el. 8 
(Inversely in 1 Th. 5. 10 etVe . . . etVe takes the conjunctive, in a 
clause inserted in the middle of a final sentence, vide supra 2.) Et 
with the pres. indie, is used with reference to present reality also in 
G. 1. 9 (8 is different) ; on the other hand eav with pres. conj. is very 
rarely so used, A. 5. 38 eav ?; It dvOpuiriov 1) ßov\r) avr-q k.t.X. followed 
in 39 by et Se Ik deov Icrnv, where we should no doubt understand 
the meaning to be : ' If perchance it should be— but if, as these 
persons maintain, it really is ' etc. That in fact is very often the 
meaning of this et: 'if really' (as is maintained), or even 'if accord- 
ingly ' (as follows from what has been said) : in the latter case it 
approximates to the meaning of «ret. Et rain-a 7rotets ('really'), 
(f)avlpu)(Tov (reavrov tw Kocrpip Jo. 7. 4. Et tov \oprov ... öebs orrojs 
dp^ilvvvfTiv ('accordingly,' see verses 28 f.), 7rocrw pdXXov lyza? 
Mt. 6. 30. 'Edv, on the other hand, when referring to an actually 

1 Not very different in meaning is 1 Jo. 2. 29 eav eid^re, where the transition 
from el with indie, to the other, apparently less suitable, mode of expression 
(eav c. conj.) is quite carried out ('as' or 'as soon as you know ..., so you also 

2 LXX. also has eäv <ri> rjada Job 22. 3. 

§ 6$- 4-6.] IN SUBORDINA TE CLA USES. 2 1 5 

existing state of things, makes the supposition indefinite : 1 C. 4. 1 5 
lav yap pvpiovs 7rai8aycoyoi>s e'x 7 / re ('even if you should have'), 
Jo. 5. 31 lav lyH> paprvpw ('if perchance'; one might also treat 
paprvpd as an indie, vide supra) irepl lp,avrov, i) p.apTvpta p.ov ovk 
eo-Tiv dXrjuijs. 1 On the other hand, with reference to things which 
may or may not happen at any time, lav with the pres. conj. is the 
regular construction, though indeed in the N.T. el with the indie, is 
also found used in this way : Mt. 5. 29 el 6 6<f>0aXp6s crov o-KavoaAt£et 
ere, cp. 30, 18. 8 f. (but lav orKavSaXiQj Mc. 9. 43, 45, 47), L. 6. 32 
el dyairdre, but in 33 lav dyaöoTTOLrJTe (Mt. 5. 46 lav ay aTrrjo-qre). 
Quite incorrect is Mc. 9. 42 KaAöV Iottlv avrw pdXXov el 7repiKeiTai . . . 
Kai ßeßXrjrai (D is correct with Trepi'eKeiro ... IßXijör]), =L. 17. 2 
(■TrepceKeiTo - ep(p)nrTo D). 'Eav with the pres. conj. in other cases 
refers to the future: lav OeXijs, Swao-ai 2 Mt. 8. 2 etc., läv pe 8ey 
Mc. 14. 31, 1 Jo. 2. 3 lav rrjpwpev (<\>vXd^wpev K*), cp. I iva p.rj 
apdpT7]Te and lav Tis dpdpTrj. 

5. (Continuation: «I with future, käv with aor. conj. and fut.) 
The connection of et with the fut. indie, is quite rare in the N.T., 
but keeps fairly well its meaning of a definite supposition : Mt. 26. 33 

= Mc. 14. 29 el (koi) 7ravTes CTKai'SaAicrÖ^o-ovTai {i.e. as you have just 

now said; cp. supra 4); 2 Tim. 2. 12 el dpmjcropeda parallel with el 
crvvaireOdvopev . . . el viropevopev k.t.X.; 1 P. 2. 20 twice el viropeveire, 
preceded by ei virocpepet ti? 19 : in this case lav vTrocfaepy and lav 
virop.eivrjTe might at least be thought to be equally possible. In L. 1 1. 8 
el koi ov Swaei is incorrect for lav kou p.7) 8(0 ; cp. the intermixture of 
fut. and aor. conj. ibid. 5 ff. The fut. is correct in 1 C. 9. 11 
Bepicropev (-<ra>pev CDE al.) and 3. 14 f. el p,evei ... el KaTaKanjcrerai, of 
a definite point of future time, the day of judgment (Ap. 13. 10 v.l.). 
— For lav with fut. indie, there is no quite certain instance : see 
Mt. 18. 19 lav crvp(p(i)vri<Tov(riv (-wctlv FGKM al.), a general statement ; 
L. 19. 40 lav o-LUrtrrjcrovcTtv fc*AB al., (riy^crovcriv D, crLWTrrjo-wcriv TA al., 
of something impending at the present moment ; A. 8. 31 lav p^-q «s 
üSrjyijo-et p.e ttB*CE (ditto) ; Ap. 2. 22 »A (ditto, but in 5 lav p-rj 
peTavoi)rrr)<s). Cp. Herrn. Mand. v. 1. 2 lav eery (as pr. man. *)s), iv. 3. 7 
lav prjKeTi 7rpoo-#?/o-w, Vis. i. 3. 2 v.l. The bulk of the instances 
exhibit the aor. conj. both in general statements and in those refer- 
ring to what is now impending: cp. for the latter case Mt. 21. 25 
lav eLirwpev, Jo. 16. 7 lav pi] direXd(i> ... lav 8e iropevdw. It is further 
used (in the province of the optative, see § 66, 4) with reference to 
what was impending in a past state of things : lav evpy A. 9. 2. A 
peculiar use is that in Mc. 10. 30 owSei's Icrnv ... lav (D os dv, cp. 
L. 18. 30) p) Xdß-ij ' without his receiving' 

6. Concessive sentences introduced by el kcu or lav kcu ' even if ' 
call for no special remarks, especially as there is no real distinction 
between them and conditional sentences. Kav which unites in itself 

1 Ibid. 8. 14 k&v eyw fiaprvpC} irepl ifiavrov, ä\r]0ris iariv 7} fiaprvpia /xov ' even if 

2 The Hellenistic et 6e\eis corresponds to the French s'il vous plait, Herodas 
7. 70, 8. 6 etc.; so in the N.T. Mt. 17. 4 et öAets iroL7)aw{fj.ev). 


the meanings of 'and if,' 'if only,' 'if even' (etsi) does not come 
under this category; cp. § 78, 7. 1 But cl is used in a special sense 
to express the expectation attending an action, Lat. si (forte) 
(classical Greek uses et and edv thus) : it is strengthened by dpa or 
dpaye and becomes equivalent to the et in an indirect question, with 
which this et was regarded as identical, and is also extended by the 
addition of 7rws (only found after et and p.(\ in the N.T.) : A. 27. 12, 
R. 1. 10, 11. 14, Ph. 3. 11. This et may therefore govern the con- 
junctive, Ph. 3. 12 8iwKü> et KUTaXdßo), cp. supra 1 and (for the 
kindred p?/, p^ore ' whether perchance ') 3, or the fut. indie. A. 8. 22 
ei dpa d(/>e$?/creTai. We may further note et |iij (class.), el jit| «, «ktos 
el |iTj 'except if,' 'except,' 'except that.' Of these el p?/ is generally 
not followed by a verb, though we also have G. 1. 7 e! pi) rives elalv 
= 7rA?)i/ oti (A. 20. 23) t. e. 'except that'; 1 C. 7. 17 et pr) ( = 7rA?)v, 
§ 77, 13) ... irepiiraTeiTia 'howbeit'; for this we have e'dv pi) (without 
a verb) in Mc. 4. 22 «B, cp. § 77, 13, G. 2. 16 (also in Attic, but 
not frequently) ; et pA] ti dv (dv om. B) ex avp.cpwvov ' except perhaps 
by agreement' 1 C. 7. 5, but with a verb in 2 C. 13. 5 et pr; ti 
dSoKipot eo-Tc ' it must then be the case that,' and with a conj. in 
L. 9. 13 et pr) Tt TropevOevTes r)pel<s dyopdcrwpev (all uncials), 'unless 
perhaps we buy' 2 ; Iktus et pr) takes the aor. indie, in 1 C. 15. 2, the 
conj. in 14. 5 Iktos et pr) Siepprjvevy (v.l. -wv D*), and stands without 
a verb in 1 Tim. 5. 19. In these connections therefore et and edv 
are interchanged, and the latter is generally replaced by the former ; 
similarly in the elliptical phrase et 8e p.i) (ye) 'otherwise' et often 
stands where edv would be used if the sentence were written in full, 
while edv 8e p,r/ does not appear at all (so Attic). 3 Apart from these 
special combinations (and apart from ehe ... etVe after tva, supra 2) et 
with the conj. is not found (the reading in Ap. 11. 5 ko.1 el ... 0e\'ijcnj 
is quite uncertain; perhaps we should write Kav from the KAIH 
of «*). 

7. Relative sentences take the conjunctive in two ways : (1) with 
dv in the kind of hypothetical sentence such as octtis dv Oefoj = edv 
Tis Qekr), (2) without dv, the relative having a final sense, where this 
construction supplants, though not entirely, the Attic future indica- 
tive. The place of av is according to the popular manner of the 
time taken by edv, the MSS. of course showing very great uncertainty 
about the reading 4 ; the position of the particle is as in Attic 
immediately after the relative, unless perhaps Se or ydp is interposed. 
The negative with the conjunctive is always p?;, with the indicative 
it is usually ov, even in cases where p?/ is used in Attic, cp. § 75, 3 

1 Käv has also become a particle meaning 'even only,' A. 5. 15, 2 C. 11. 16, 
Clem. Cor. ii. 7. 2, 18. 2 (Attic). 

2 Viteau, p. 114 explains the conj. as deliberative, sc. ßovXet ('unless we 
should buy '). 

3 Krüger, § 65, 5, 12. 

4 *Os tav Mt. 5. 19 (eäv om. 1)*, a^ D c ) : 10. 14 5s eäv CEF al. (äv NBDKL) : 
A. 7. 7 (J eäv (Slv BD) O.T. Also in the London papyrus of Aristotle (0: eav 
col. 12, 31, chap. 30. 2). Cp. § 26, 4. 


(similarly et ov, supra 4). Now in constructions with a relative 
sentence, which might be replaced by hypothetical clauses, no state- 
ment is made about anything concrete and actual, but only a general 
statement or supposition; consequently os (or Sems, § 50, 1) av, 
corresponding to eav, appears to be the regular phrase. So L. 8. 18 

ös yap av (civ yap «BLX) eX?/> SoÖrjcrerai aiVw, Kai os av fiij €\Vt KaL ° 

e^et (no longer hypothetical, the supposition having already been 
made in ös av p?) e'x#) apdyo-erat. dir' avrov. But the same saying 
takes the form in Mt. (13. 12) and Mc. (4. 25) of os (oo-rts) yap ex" 
(av Zxv m ^ c - AE 2 G al., av e'x et L»E*F al.) ... os ovk ex« (E*G al. 
ovk e'x#). The indicative, which also appears in classical Greek, in 
such sentences expresses the definite assumption that such persons 
exist. This assumption occasionally arises directly from the circum- 
stances : L. 9. 50 ( = Mc. 9. 40) os yap ovk eo-ri Kad' vptuv, iVep v/iwv 
io-TLv, cp. 49. — The same relation exists between the aor. conj. and 
the fut. ind. as between the pres. conj. and pres. ind., and the dis- 
tinction here also frequently appears to be obliterated : Mt. 18. 4 
(öo-Tis Ta7retvaKre6 eairrdv, whereas in 23. 12 with the same sense the 
future tense may be purposely used with reference to the future of 
the disciples), 5. 39 (the reading of «B pa-ifa is not good), 41, 10. 
32 ocms opoXoy'ijo-ei answering to 33 öo-ris 5' av apvijo-yrai (and cp. 
L. 12. 8). Of course the fut. may also be equivalent to the pres. 
with äv, and the latter be equivalent to the fut. (continuous action) : 
L. 17. 31 os eWat eVi rov owpa-ros. The fut. ind. is equally admissible 
after os dv as it is after lav, but there is a lack of certain instances of 
this construction : Mc. 8. 35 diroXiaei NBCD- al. (-o-y AL al.), L. 17. 
^^ do. «AL al. (-0--1] BDE al.), 12. 8 opoAoyv/o-et AB*DR al., A. 7. 7 
O.T. ACD, Barn. 11. 8 o lav l^eAeiVeTut nC 1 : while the present 
indie. oTT-oi» av virdyei Ap. 14. 4 only rests on the authority of AC and 
must certainly be rejected. The possibility of av being omitted with 
oo-rts is maintained, but in no case are all the MSS in agreement : 
Mt. 10. 33 (om. av BL), Ja 2 10 öo-ns ... rypyo-y (kBC, act AKLP), 
7TTaio-y Se Iv evt («ABC, o-et KLP) ; 00-01 without dv is found twice in 
Herrn. Sim. via 11. 3. 

8. (Continuation). — Relative sentences with a final meaning occa- 
sionally show instances of the fut. in the N.T. as in Attic: Mc. 1. 2 = 
Mt. 11. 10, L. 7. 27 d-oo-TeAAti) tov ayyeAov p.ov ..., os KaTao-xawei 
(O.T. Malachi 3. 1, but our LXX. has a different text), 1 C. 4. 17 (but 
we also say 'who shall'), but elsewhere the conj. is used, which must 
be explained by assimilation to sentences with i'va, which are else- 
where found with the same meaning. Mc. 14. 14 = L. 22. 11 ttov 
ecrriv to /caret Ai'pa ottov cf>dy(D (D in Mc. has </>ayopat), = i'va </>ayw : 
A. 21. 16 ayovres Trap' w £ei'io-$(opev Mvacrwvi, = 7rpos Mvao-wva tva £ev. 

7rap' ai'rw. On the other hand Ave have tva in 2 C. 12. 7 Z86dy pot 
o-i<6\o\p ... ayyeAos o"arava, i'va pe KoXa<f>t£y (Viteau p. 134 f.). — Akin 
to these are the relative sentences which denote a kind of consequence 
resulting from some particular quality or state, and which in Latin 

1 *As av awTekiaovffiv occurs in an inscription in a translation from the Latin, 
Viereck Sermo Graecus senatus Rom. (Gtg. 1888), p. 38. 67, 8. 


take the conjunctive like final relative sentences. In this case we 
have the fut. in L. 7. 4 ä£ids Zcrriv <o Trapegß (mid.) tovto, cp. Lat. 

future is classical, but o is not, as Tt must have been used (for the 
delib. eonj. in indirect questions vide supra 1); in ex etv Tl ° -pocr- 
eveyicn H. 8. 3 (cp. Clem. Cor. i. 38. 2 e8wKev 6V ov TrpocravaTrkrjpwBy) 
the fut. would be used in classical Greek, cp. Phil. 2. 20 ov8eva ey^ • • • 
«oris pepLp.v>')(rei. Here again the infinitive would be possible, t'x et Tt 
Trpoo-eveyKai, and that in the N.T. might be replaced by Iva, Jo. 5. 7, 
see § 69, -4. 

9. Temporal sentences introduced by ore, orav (6tt6t€ only in L. 

6. 3 AEH al., ore «BCD al.), («ret only in L. 7. 1 with v.l. Zttc^t) ; 
elsewhere «r« is causal in the N.T.), ws etc. (see § 78, 3), are generally 
only a special class of relative sentences, and exhibit the same con- 
structions. "Ore is found very frequently with the aorist indicative, 
but according to circumstances also takes the imperfect, perfect (1 C. 
13. 11 ot£ ykyova, but B has Zyev6pLi]i>), present (H. 9. 17), and future. 
The last tense usually occurs in phrases like ep^erat wpo. ore 77 poo- - 
Kwrjcrere Jo. 4. 21, cp. 23, 5. 25, 28, 16. 25, L. 17. 22 (oVe Z-!riOvp.i)(reT£, 
D tou eTTiOvprjo-ai vpas), 2 Tim. 4. 3, which are closely related to 
relative phrases such as ovSZv Zo-tlv KtKaXvppkvov o ovk diroKaXv^Oi)- 
a-erai (Mt. 10. 26), 1 (and therefore in the former as in the latter 
instances the place of the fut. may be taken by the infin., and that 
again may be replaced by Iva with conj., Jo. 16. 2 'ipyj.-ai üpa Iva 
86£y). Hence in accordance with what was said in 8 the conj. (with- 
out av) may also take the place of this fut. : L. 13. 35 «os ■>'/£« ore (the 
time when) eiirrjTe (so AD etc. ; there is a v.l. eu»s ay ei7r>;Te, agreeing 
with Mt. 23. 39). Elsewhere ore does not appear with the conj.; a 
further instance of its use with the fut. is R. 2. 16 Zv i)p.Zpa ore npivei 
(v.l. Zv y] fjp.. Kpivd, or according to Marcion's N.T., simply Kpivd, 
cp. § 79, 7), whereas in other places orav with the conj. is used in 
this way: Mt. 9. 15 Zkevcrovrat rjp.Zpai orav dirapOtj, cp. Mc. 2. 20, 
for which Luke uses the more awkward, but more correct construc- 
tion (5. 35) ZXtvo-ovrat, rjpZpat, nal (§ 77, 6) 6Vav airapOij . .., Tore 
vrjcrTeva-ovcriv (ko.1 om. wC. al.). The use of 6Vav is more justifiable in 
Mt. 26. 29 (Mc. 14. 25) ecus TT~}i rj/iepas Zkcivtis orav tt'lvü), since the 
phrase is a periphrasis for Attic rrplv S.v. — "Orav with the indicative 
denotes in the first place indefinite frequency in past time, see §63, 
7 ; secondly it is used quite incorrectly in Ap. 8. 1 orav yjvoi^e AC 
(ore nP, and so this author writes elsewhere, 6. 1, 3 etc.; in modern 
Greek orav is 'when' as av is 'if'); besides this it corresponds to 
Zdv with the indie, (supra 4) in L. 13. 28 orav oxptvde. B*DX (-rjo-Oe 

AB 00 " - a 1 ^ 'i8j]T€ n), Mc. 11. 25 OTai' CTT?/k-£T€ (cp. Z(tV (TTy]K€Te 1 Th. 3. 

7, but there there is a reason for it [see above 4], which in the 
passage from St. Mark is not the case) ACD al. (--qre BG al., o-tt}t€ «); 

1 For this Mc. 4. 22 has ^av /xr] 'iva cpavepuiOy, = perhaps Üxrre <pavepb)9fjvai or in 
better Attic 0101* (pavcpwdrjvai. 

§ 6s- 9-10. § 66. 1.] IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES. 219 

elsewhere its use is insufficiently attested (L. 11. 2 irpoa-evxea-Oe 
ACH al.; Jo. 7. 27 epx^rat «X etc.; the evidence for divert Mc. 13. 
7 is quite insufficient). Cp. Clem. Cor. ii. 12. 1 6Vav eWai (quotation), 
17. 6, Barn. 15. 5 K. 

10. (Continuation). — Temporal particles and compound expressions 
with the meaning 'until' ('while'), ecos, ecos ov (otov), ev c3, axpi(s), 
ä^pts ov, ^expi(s), p*xP l<i °^ (§ 78, 3) take the indicative in the regular 
way (the fut. ind. is rare, it is a v.l. in L. 13. 35 [see 9]; the present 
is used instead in etos ep^oyuat Jo. 21. 22, 1 Tim. 4. 13 'until I come' 
[§ 56, 8] = ev <S ep^o/xai L. 19. 13, 1 cp. Mc. 6. 45 kBL ecos aiVos a7roAv£i, 
v.l. d-KoXva-ri -cret, D aiVos 8e cb-oA-vei ; but here it may also mean 
' while '). But where they take the conjunctive, ecus frequently, and 
ews ov (otov), axpts (ov), /i«xP ts °^ probably always omit the <xv : Mc. 
13. 30 fJLexpts ov (p.. otov B, pcXP 1 **j ^ ws °^ D) TOt ^ Ta TTcivra yev^Tai, 
1 C. 11. 26 aX/ 01 °^ (" v add. « C D C al.) e'AÖ?/, E. 4. 13 p-^XP 1 KaTavnyo-w/tei', 
L. 21. 24 ax/ 01 °^ (°^ om ' A a ^-) vXripwOwo-iv, L. 17. 8 ews (civ add. 
AK al.) (f>dyb>, Mc. 14. 32 ecos irpocrev^(j}p.aL (D al. -oyuai), 2 Th. 2. 7 
(ews civ FG) ; olv is used in Mt. 5. 26 ecus av cra-oSais and in all other 
passages (Ap. 2. 25 axpt oS av r/£w; the fut. occurs without avin 17. 
17, but B reads TeXeo-dwo-iv as in 15. 8, 20. 3, 5). We even have dxP 1 
>js ?}/ J ie/Das yevrjTai L. 1. 20. The reason for this usage of the language, 
which may be traced back a long way (Herodotus, Thucydides and 
others 2 ), is probably to be found in the fact that these sentences 
have a certain affinity with final sentences ; sentences with 71731V have 
this same affinity, in which the omission of <xv is specially frequent 
in classical authors, but in the N.T. these have been considerably 
supplanted by clauses formed with ews etc. (npiv with the conj„ 
appears in L. 2. 26 Trplv •>} [■>'} om. B] av [av om. AD al.] i8y, but n* 
here also has «cos av i8y : 22. 34 irplv ?} aTrapv7]o-t] AT al., but ecus is 
read by fctBL, ecus ov K al., ecus otov D ; with the optative A. 25. 16, 
see § 66, 5). 


1. The optative in principal sentences to denote a practicable 
(see § 63, 5) wish has not yet gone out of use in the N.T. 3 (the negative 
is prj). M17 yevoiro occurs in L. 20. 16 and frequently in Paul (to 

express strong aversion, lxx. has the same phrase, Hebr. P^pn). 
1 Th. 5. 23 dycacrat : Philem. 20 eyw o-ov 6vaip.i]V : Mc. 11. 14 pirjKtTi 

1 Viteau, p. 129 f. explains the passages in Lc. and Jo. as meaning 'while I 
go' or 'withdraw myself,' though this explanation cannot be applied to the 
passage in 1 Tim. All other explanations than that given above are completely 
discredited by its use in Hermas Sim. v. 2. 2, ix. 10. 5, 6, 11. 1 tav de /j.t] Fkdrj, 
fieveh fled' tj/jlCHv Hide eu>s ipxerai until he comes (which is a certainty, § 56, 8). 
One must therefore also attribute to iv $ L. 19. 13 with the same present the 
meaning of ' until,' = es 6. 

2 Krüger, § 54, 17, 3 (dialekt. Synt. 54, 17, 5 and 9). 

3 There are 35 examples in all (Burton, p. 79), all with the exception of 
Philem. 20 in the 3rd person. 


jxißeU tfidyoi. But there is a strong inclination to use the imperative 
instead of the optative, not only in requests, where the imperative 
has a legitimate place in classical Greek as well, but also in impreca- 
tions, where it takes the place of the classical optative: dvdöe/xa eWco 
Gr. 1. 6 f., cp. 1 0. 10. 22. x The single instance of the pres. opt. is 
A. 8. 20 to apyvptov <rov et?; eis airiaXziav. The Attic phrases et yap, 
eWe to introduce a wish (§ 63, 5) are not found; öfaXov (vide ibid.) 
is used with a fut. ind. to express a practicable wish in G. 5. 12 
n<f>eXov kolI diroKoipoi'Tcu 01 uvacrTaTovvTes tyxds, 'would that they would 
at once castrate themselves.' 

2. The optative with &v in principal sentences to denote possi- 
bility (modus potentialis) has quite disappeared from the popular 
language; the unique instance of it (besides its use in questions) is A. 
26. 29 (Paul before Agrippa, literary language) ev^aipi^v av (cp. in class. 
Greek Aeschines 1. 159), whereas elsewhere ißovXopijv is used rather 
than ßovXoiprjv av, % 63, 5, and in hypothetical sentences (infra 4) the 
optative (with av) is at any rate never found in the principal clause. 
In many places where Attic could have used the potential mood, the 
X.T. uses the future indicative : R. 3. 6 lira, ttws xpivei 6 öeos tov 
Kocrp,ov ; 1 C. 15. 35 epd tis (although this future is also not un- 
classical, § 61, 1 ; Buttm. p. 188). Instances of the optative also 
occur in Luke in direct questions : n-ws yap av 8vvaipr]v A. 8. 31 and 
ti av BkXoi ovTos Xkyeiv 17. 18, cp. infra 3 (also taken from the literary 

3. The optative of indirect speech (in subordinate clauses), answer- 
ing to the indicative or conjunctive of direct speech, cannot be expected 
to occur with any frequency in the N.T., on account of the decided 
preference which the language in general shows for direct expression. 
Luke alone uses the optative occasionally, and even he never has it 
after on and us, and not often even in indirect questions proper 
(L. 22. 23 Tis dpa et?/, 8. 9 Tt's e«; (eu/ om. LHr) ; the following instances 
should probably all contain av and the optative therefore answers to 
the potential mood of the direct question (supra 2)' 2 : L. 1. 29 7roTa7ros 
av (add. D) et'»), 62 ti av OeXot KaAetcröat, 6. 11, 9. 46, 15. 26 (av om. 
t*Ar al. ; D ti OeXei tovto elvai), 18. 32 (av om «ABP al.), Acts (2. 12 
ti OeXet, tovto elvai a direct question ; E av OkXoi, n öeAot, readings 
which in an indirect question are inadmissible after Aeyovres), 5. 24 rt 
av ykvono tovto, 10. 17. Besides this the optative of indirect speech 
is found after et 'whether' (^ 65, 1 and 6) in A. 17. 27 (v/Tetr -n>r 
öeor, et apaye \pip\a<fy>)<Ttiav avrbv koi evpotev, cp. 27 12, 39, and after 
pJTTOTe ' whether perhaps ' in L. 3. 15 /*?/77-o~e en; infra 4, and lastly 
in a dependent statement of time in indirect speech, A. 25. 16 vide 
infra 5. 

4. "While no example of the optative is found in final sentences 
(on E. 1. 17 see § 65, 2, note 1 : 3, note 1), there are some few 

1 The optative in an imprecation of ill only occurs in Me. 11. 14, A. 8. 20. 
In a quotation from Ps. 109. 8, A. 1.8 uses Xa/3eVw where the lxx. has \d/3ot. 

2 An indirect question may also in classical Creek take every mood of the 
direct question, Krüger, § 54, 6, 6. 

§ 66. 4-5. § 67- § 68. 1.] IMPERATIVE. INFINITIVE. 2 2I 

instances of it in hypothetical sentences. A. 24. 19 ov% eSei ... kot)]-, el n e^oiev Trpbs e/xe, which would certainly be more correctlv 
expressed by et' ti e^owi or edv Tt eyuxri : 20. 16 ecnrevSev yap, el 
Svvarbv eli] aiVw, ... yeveo-Öai eis 'lepovo-aXijp, (indirect; besides et may 
very naturally be understood as meaning 'whether,' cp. 27. 12, 39, 
supra 3): 1 P. 3. 14 et /cat iraa-^oire 8ta SiKaioo-vvyv, fxaKapioL, 17 
Kpelrrov dyaOoiroiovvTas, el deXot to OeX^pa rod deov, irdo-^eiv ■>} kclko- 
TToiovvTas, 'if perchance' as in Attic (literary language). Besides these 
we have the formula et tv\ol in St. Paul, 1 C. 14. 10, 15. 37. 

5. In (relative and) temporal sentences there is no further instance 
besides A. 25. 16 (Festus's words) : direnpidip' ort ovk «rriv e0o? 
yapi{eo-ßa.L . .., irplv ?} 6 Kar^yopovpei'os e'x ot . . . Xdßoi re, where the 
opt. is rightly used in indirect speech for the conj. of direct speech. 


1. The imperative in the N.T. keeps for the most part within the 
same limits as in the classical language ; as in that language it by no 
means expresses simply a command, but also a request or a concession 
(Mc. 8. 32 virdyeTe, 2 C. 12. 6 ecrTw 8e). In the last case the impera- 
tive sentence may be equivalent to a concessive sentence : Jo. 2. 1 9 
Ai'crciTe tov vaov tovtov, /cat ev rpicrlv eyepio auTov, = edv ko.1 
A.i'o-?/Te; cp. in classical Greek Soph. Ant. 1168 ff. TrXovret re yap Kar 
oiKov ... edv S' airtj tovtojv to ^alpetv, rdXX' eyw xairvov crKtas ovk av 
Trpiaip,r)v (Kühner ii. 201). On the encroachment of the imperative 
into the province of the optative see § 66, 1. 

2. The imperative is frequently replaced by the conjunctive, see 
§ 64, 2, by Iva or deXco ha with conj., ibid. 4, or by the fut. indie, 
ibid. 3 ; cp. Viteau p. 37. On the substitution of the infinitive for it 
see § 69, 1. 


1. The infinitive is another of those forms which the language at 
a later period gave up, in favour of a periphrasis with ha (mod. 
Greek vd) and the conjunctive, a construction which has already 
been largely developed in the N.T. But the infinitive is still abund- 
antly used beside it by all writers, so that it depends on the discretion 
of the writer on each separate occasion whether he employs the 
synthetic or the analytical expression, though the latter is not in all 
cases open to use. The beginnings of this development may be 
traced not only in the earlier Hellenistic Greek, but also previously 
to that in classical Greek, the only difference being that in the 
classical language the particle used in the periphrasis is not ha but 
öVws, e.g. Tveipdo-Oai oVws <ri»{iop:e0a (Xenoph.) = -rreipdo-daL o-(ü(ecr0ai, 
whereas later öVos retired more into the background (§ 65, 2) and 
finally disappeared. Cp. also the use of ut in Latin which is so 
frequently interchangeable with the infinitive. 

222 INFINITIVE [§ 68. 2-3. § 69. 1. 

2. From early times there existed in Greek a second analytical 
expression for the infinitive, namely On (ws) with the indicative, with 
which cp. the Latin use of quod or quia (late Latin says dim vobis quia 
unus vestrum me traditurus est). The line of demarcation between the 
old on, which of course reappears in the N.T., and the new Iva is 
that the former has an indicative sense, the latter a conjunctive 
(or imperative) sense, while the infinitive is the 6vop.a pharos (as 
Apollonius calls it) with a neutral meaning between the two others. 
To express actual facts, therefore, particularly those which belong to 
past time, iva can never be used in the periphrasis, but only 6V1 ; on 
the other hand things which may be regarded as a contemplated 
result or one likely to occur, are expressed to a wide extent by Iva. 
The intervening province, viz. that which still belongs exclusively to 
the infinitive, is not a large one in the N.T.: under this head, for in- 
stance, comes the rule that Svvaardai and peWztv are joined exclusively 
with the infinitive. 

3. As the 6uofj.a prjfx.aro% the infinitive is capable of taking the 
neuter of the article, and this may be declined, and the cases of the 
infinitive so formed may be dependent on different prepositions. In 
this way the sphere of the infinitive has been very largely extended, 
so that it can also represent temporal and causal sentences. The 
N.T. retains this usage, and in particular employs the genitive with 
tou in the most lavish way. 


1. The use of the infinitive in a principal sentence in place of a 
finite verb, with imperative sense and with the subject in the 
nominative 1 , is extremely old and found with special frequency in 
Homer, while in Attic it becomes less prominent. On the other 
hand the later classical language (especially in legal phraseology) 
uses the accusative and infinitive in this sense, or the simple infinitive 
with no subject expressed (kkyeiv 'one must say ' = AeKreov), in which 
case the ideas accessory to the subject appear in the accusative. 2 At 
the same time Attic uses oVws with the fut. indie, with imperative 
sense. In the N.T. we find in a few passages Iva with the conj. 
used in a similar way, see § 64, 4 : and the infinitive which is equi- 
valent to it twice in St. Paul, R. 12. 15 \aipuv fxera xaipovrwv, 
K/Vateiv fJieTa kXoliovtwv, Ph. 3. 16 7tAt)v eis ö Z(f>6d(rap,€v } ra avTio 
o-toix^v. Where the subject has to be expressed Paul uses 'iva : ■>] 8e 
ywr] Iva (fioßrjrai tov avSpa E. 5. 33. It is very easy here to supply 
a governing verb (a verbum dicendi or xp^'h ^ € ')> as ^ ^ s with the 
(accusative and) infinitive ; the infinitive \aipuv to express a wish 
in epistolary style is clearly elliptical, A. 15. 23, 23. 26. 

1 Homer, II. B. 75 ü/xets 0' ÖXKodev dtXXoj eprjrveiv eirleaaiv. Aristoph. Ran. 133 
too' thai koI au cravTÖv. 

2 So in Aristotle. Bonitz Index Aristot. s. v. Infinitivus. 


2. Of equal antiquity with the last usage is the use of the infinitive 
to express aim or object, which in Homer has a much wider range 
than in Attic writers, who for the most part only employ it after 
verbs containing the idea of to give, appoint, present, send etc. 
This infinitive, which is equivalent to a final sentence, has again 
become widely prevalent in the N.T.: Mt. 5. 17 ovk rjXdov KaraXva-ai, 
dXXd irXrjpQcrai ; 4. 1 6 'L/crous avr/xdrj els ttjv eprjp.ov vttu tov 
TTvevfAaros, TreipacrOiji'ai vtto tou SiaßoXov ; L. 18. 10 dve^ö?y<rav 
TTpoo-ev^ao-Qai ; A. 10. 33 Tra.pea-p.ev aKovcrai. (Attic would here use 
the future participle which in the N.T. is almost unused, § 61, 4.) 
Of course this infinitive is also found with SiSöVai, a7roo-TeAAeiv etc. 
as in Attic: Mc. 3. 14 aTroo-reAA^ KYjpvcro-eLV (A. 5. 21 a7r€crTetAav 
axdrjvai avrovs is different, the construction being passive, and the 
ace. and inf. being therefore used ; cp. inf. 8), Mt. 25. 35 lowKare p\oi 
$ayeiv. Beside the inf. Iva also appears again : Mt. 27. 26 7rape8wKev 
Iva (TTavpiodrj ( = Mc. 15. 1 5, Jo. 19. 16), though in the case of a 
specially close connection of the two verbs in certain definite phrases 
the infinitive does not admit of being replaced by Iva : thus 7ra/oa- 
SiSovai <f>vXd(ro-eiv A. 12. 4, 16. 4, SiSovat (arrety) (jxtyelv, irieiv passim, 
while on the other hand where the connection is not so close and 
the subordinate clause is of greater length, ha is the natural con- 
struction : though here the infin. may also be used, as in A. 20. 28 
i'/zas to TTvevp,a to dytov edero e7rio"K07roi's, TTOip.alveiv tijv Zkk Xyjcriav 
k.t.X., 1. 24 f. e£eXe£io ... Xaßelv k.t.X. Moreover with regard to the 
use of tva there is here and in all cases where the infinitive is in 
question a distinction between the different writers : John, Matthew, 
and Mark employ it very freely, Luke much more rarely, especially 
in the Acts, a work which has very few instances of the employment 
of this particle in an unclassical way ; also in James, Peter, and the 
Epistle to the Hebrews it only appears as a strictly final particle. — 
A third construction with 7rapaSiS6va.L etc. is ets to with the infinitive, 
see § 71, 5 ; the participle, which is also so used in the N.T., offers 
another alternative construction, § 74, 2, and aim or object of any 
kind is very frequently denoted by means of rov with the infinitive, 
§ 71, 3. 

3. Akin to the infinitive of aim is the infinitive of result, yet so 
far distinguished from it, that if the result is declared to be actual, 
ha according to what has been said has, or at least should have, no 
place (vide infra). The particle used to introduce this infinitive is 
<ü<tt€ as in classical Greek ; the alternative use of the simple cos is no 
more certainly established for the N.T. than it is for ordinary Attic. 1 
ilcrre is also used in the N.T. (as in classical Greek) to introduce 
independent sentences, when it takes the indicative, imperative, or 
hortatory conjunctive (meaning 'therefore'). It also occasionally 
takes the indicative where the sentence is really dependent (class.), 

1 In L. 9. 52 d>s is only read by KB ; A. 20. 24 ws re\etw<rw ***(ews r. N C )B, üs 
Te\eiQ<Tat, AHLP : re has apparently fallen out before reXeitDcraf, and so E has 
oxrre (<bs to C). In Josephus, however, the traditional text often has a con- 
secutive ibs (with infin.), Raab de Jos. elocut. (Erlangen, 1890), p. 37. 

224 INFINITIVE AND [§ 69. 3. 

Jo. 3. 16 oÜtcüs yap t'iyaTry^rtv 6 öeus tot k6ct[iov, cuctt€ tov vlov tov 
/j-ovoyevi) eoWcv (cp. further G. 2. 13); but in most cases of this kind 
it takes the infinitive (class.), the subject being usually added in the 
accusative, unless it can be obviously supplied from what has pre- 
ceded (cp. § 72). The construction with the infinitive has a some- 
what wider range than in Attic ; in a sentence like A. 15. 39 Zyevero 
7rapo£i>o-/xos, tixrre o.Tro^oipurdrjvai avTovs aw dWijkuiv, an Attic writer 
would rather have used the indicative, both because there was no close 
connection between the clauses and also on account of the importance 
attaching to the result. But coo-re is by no means used (either in 
the N.T. or in Attic) to introduce merely the actual or the possible 
result, but may also introduce the contemplated result, and so the 
boundary-line which separates these sentences from sentences of 
design almost disappears. 1 In eScofcev avTois i^ovo-iav wvevp-aTotv 
uKadäpTuv, ware eKßäWeiv avrd (Mt. 10. 1) we still have a sentence 
denoting pure result, 'so that they could drive out' (there is an 
affinity between this construction and the simple inf. after i^ovo-lav 
eX €lv > i n fr a 5) ; but L. 20. 20 tva eViAttßcoi'Tcu aiTOv \6yov, wcrre 
wapaSovvai avTov ry dp\y tov i)ycp,6vos means ' so that they might be 
able ' = ' in order that they might be able,' and the v.l. eis to for to'crre 
(AF al., cp. supra 2) is quite in accordance with the sense. Cp. 
further L. 4. 29 tüWe ('in order to,' v.l. eis to AC al.) KaTaKpyp-vio-ai 
avTov, 9. 52 cu'crre ('in order to'; «B cbs, see note 1 on p. 223) eToi/xucmi 
avTO), Mt. 27. I (TVjxßovXiov ekaßov wcttc Oavarwo-ai avrov (D correctly 
explaining the meaning gives tva Oavanocrovo-iv avr.). 2 — The inf. 
without wo-Te (also with its subject in the accusative) is used .in a 
similar way to express result : A. 5. 3 Sid ti eVA^pcoo-ei/ 6 craTavas ti)v 
KapSlav (tov, \pevo-ao-9ai ere k.t.A., Ap. 5. 5 eViK^crev 6 Aecof... dvol^ai 
(B 6 di'oiyuiv) k.t.A., 16. 9 ov puerevoyo-av S01W1 avTio S6£av, H. 6. 10 
ov yap d8iKo? 6 0e6s, (sc. cucrre) eViAa OecrOai. The inf. is still more 
freely used in L. 1. 54 (the Magnificat) dvTeXdßero 'Io-pto/A 7ratSos 
avrov, ixvr)o-9rjvat lAeous k.t.A., and in 72 (the Benedictus) woir/o-ai 
e'Aeos k.t.A. (the clauses are joined together quite incoherently : this 
clause is parallel with the accusative of a noun in the preceding 
verse 71 o-WTypiav e£ e\9pwv k.t.A.); cp. 78 f. (inf. after Iweo-nkxpaTo). — 
Then again this infinitive of result may be replaced (as elsewhere in 
late writers 3 ) by Iva instead of the classical coorre : 1 Jo. 1. 9 77-to-Tos 

e'crTtv kcu Sikcuos, tva «</>?/ tcis ayxapTias (cp. Slipra H. 6. io), Ap. 9. 20 
(cp. supra 16. 9) ov8e ptiTevoycrav, Iva p\r\ wpoo-Kvvyo-ovo-iv, 13. 13 Troiei 
(ri]p,cia p.eyd\a, iVa kcu Trvp woiy Karaßaivav (cp. a similar phrase with 
wWe in Mt. 24. 24), Jo. 9. 2 Tis ypLaprev ..., tva tvc/>Aos ytvvydy ('SO 

l "QtTTe (i(j> core) 'on condition that' does not appear in the N.T. (for which 
tea is used in G. 2. 9) : nor yet ware after a comparative with rf (vewrepos 7} ware 
eldivai), Burton p. 150. On iVa in Mo. 4. 22 see § 65, 9 note. 

2 Here belongs also A. 20. 24, see note 1 on last page, ' in order to fulfil,' if 
ware Te\etQ>acu is the correct reading. Cp. for wore in Josephus W. Schm d de 
Fl. Jos. elocut. (1893) p. 418 ff. 

3 Cp. op. cit. 420 f., where instances from Josephus are given (in all of which, 
however, the result is merely conceived and not actual). 

§ 69. 3-4.] PERIPHRASIS WITH l'va. 225 

that '), L. 9. 45 r\v irapaK.eKaXvpp.evov dir avr£>v, Iva p.i) aurdwvrai auTO, 
2 C. 1. 17, 1 Th. 5. 4: Herrn. Sim. vii. 2, ix. 1. 10. In these 
instances the correct limits for the use of iva. are already exceeded. 
(In other passages one can quite well regard Iva as final, e.g. in the 
phrase Iva irkrjpudrj 'in order to carry out God's determinate 
counsel.') — The so-called infinitive absolute after w?, which is 
fairly frequent in Attic, only appears in o>s «Vos eiVeiv ' so to say ' 
H. 7. 9 (literary language). 

4. With the infinitive of design or result are included the well- 
known constructions of the infinitive with verbs meaning to wish, 
strive, avoid, ask, summon, make, leave, allow, hinder, be able, have 
power etc., with which in classical Greek wo-re is often prefixed to 
the infinitive. An alternative Attic construction with a certain 
number of these verbs is that with oVws, though it is by no means 
used to the same extent in which Latin ut is used after verbs of this 
kind ; at a later time Iva stepped into the place of öVois and obtained 
a more and more extended use, so that in the N.T. with a great 
number of these verbs Iva begins to be interchangeable with the inf., 
and even (especially in writers other than Luke, Paul, and the author 
of Hebrews) to supplant it. The subject of the inf. is often either 
necessarily (as with or in most cases (as with deXw) identical 
with that of the principal verb, elsewhere it coincides with the 
object of the principal verb (ew) or with the dative which follows it 
(7rpoo-Tacro-w) ; if it requires to be expressly stated, it stands in the 
accusative. Qi\o> usually takes the (ace. and) inf.: 'Iva in Mt. 7. 12, 
1 C. 14. 5 (8eXu> vfias XaXeiv ..., pdXXov Se Iva irpo^revi^re) and else- 
where.— BovXo|ach (as a word belonging to cultured speech) only takes 
the (ace. and) inf., so roXfxuJ takes inf. ( H. 11. 24; also cWto 
in fxrj Sogrjre Xeyeiv Mt. 3. 9 ' do not let it occur to you to say ' : see 
also 1 C. 11. 16 : 28o£e p.01 in Luke e.g. L. 1. 3). — inf. and 
tVa, Jo. 11. 53 (v.l. o-weßovX.), 12. 10 (in class. Greek inf. and oVcos); 
similarly 0-vpß tVa Mt. 26. 4 : o-vp,ßovXevei,v tivL 'to advise,' 
with inf. Ap. 3. 18. — 'Opi£w inf. A. 11. 29. — 2vvTie« inf. and iVa, 
Jo. 9. 22; TrpoTidefiai inf. R. 1. 13. — 'EmBvpco, eiriirodw only take the 
inf. (or ace. and inf. H. 6. n); but we have ^ya AAiao-a-ro tVa ISy 
Jo. 8. 56, where the meaning can only be 'to long with ecstasy,' 'to 
rejoice that he should see,' cp. the use of rov and the inf. (§ 71, 3) in 
Herm. Vis. iii. 8. 7 Trepi^ap-q^ eyev6p.^v rov ISelv, 10. 6. — ZiiTtö (e7Tt^T.) 
takes inf.: Iva in 1 C. 4. 2, 14. 12. — Z^X« ('to strive zealously ') takes 
Iva in 1 C. 14. 1. — 2irov8dtw only the (ace. and) inf. (cnrevSw ace. and 
inf. in Herrn. Sim. ix. 3. 2 ; t)ywvi^ovTo iva Jo. 18. 36, ^iXoripdo-Oai 
takes inf. in Paul). — ücipatw ' to try ' takes inf. (the Attic 
also takes öVws 1 ). — 'Emxtipw (only in Lc.) also takes inf.: and so 
do-Kio, only in A. 24. 16. — BXt'irtT« iva ('see to it that': Att. Spare 

oVeos) occurs in 1 C. 16. IO. — (e-iraLO-x.), <f>oß ' to be 

ashamed' or 'afraid to do something,' only the inf. (L. 16. 3 etc.); so 
6kvC> A. 9. 38. — 4>vXdo-cropai tVa p.]] 2. P. 3. 1 7 (Attic has p-i) and o7rw§ 

1 A. 15. 10 tL 7r«pdfere rbv deöv, eiridelvai £vy6v must be similarly explained, 
unless perhaps rbv deöv, which is omitted in some Latin mss., is an interpolation. 


226 INFINITIVE AND [§ 69. 4. 

fir}). — Acoren 'to request' takes iva in L. 9. 40, 21. 36, 22. 32, öVojs 
in Mt. 9. 3S, L. 10. 2, A. 8. 24, elsewhere the inf. (Attic uses inf. 
and o7tws). — 'EpuTü iva ('request') occurs in Mc. 7. 26 etc., t>7rws 
in L. 7. 3, 11. 37, A. 23. 20, elsewhere it takes inf. (and ace. of 
the object of ep.) ; so eVepwTw Mt. 16. 1. — IlapaKaXw 'to beseech,' 
'exhort' similarly takes iva in Mt. 14. 36 etc., öVws in Mt. 8. 34 
(B Iva), A. 25. 2 (cp. Att. with inf. and oVus). — takes (ace. and) inf. L. 23. 23, A. 3. 14, 7. 46, 13. 28, Jo. 4. 9, 
E. 3. 13 : Iva Col. 1. 9 (kcu alrovfxevoL om. B) ; in classical Greek it 
also takes oVus. — npoo-euxopai Iva Mc. 14. 35 etc. (öVws A. 8. 15, inf. 
L. 22. 40; cp. tov with inf. Ja. 5. 17); eu^o/wu (a more literary 
word) takes (ace. and) inf. A. 26. 29 etc. — 'Agi« 'to ask' (Luke, 
literary language) only takes (ace. and) inf. A. 15. 38, 28. 22 (in 
class. Greek also Ö7ra>s; iva in a forged document in Demosth. 18. 
155); in the sense of 'to count worthy' it also takes the inf. (cp. <x£ios, 
infra 5) L. 7. 7 ; Kara^iw A. 5. 41. — üapaivü ace. of the object and 
inf. (only in A. 27. 22, a literary word). — KeXevw only takes the (ace. 
and) inf. (being used only by Mt. and Lc); similarly rdo-orw A. 15. 2, 
8tardcra-(D ( mid.), irpoa-rdcra-ui (rare), €7riTao-(ra> (rare); dvapu- 
p.vycTK(x) 2 Tim. 1. 6, direiXovp.aL mid. A. 4. 17, veuco A. 24. 10; 
•n-apcryyeMu also takes 'Iva Mc. 6. 8 (dirayyeXXd} iva Mt. 28. io); SO 'iva 1 Tim. 5. 21 ; 'iva Mc. 13. 34; K-qpvacni) 
iva Mc. 6. 12 ; iva Mt. 16. 20 (v.l. e-!reTLp.i]0-ev), Mc. 7. 36 
etc.; €irmp.w iva Mt. 20. 31 (with the two last verbs there is no 
instance of the inf.; in class. Greek verbs of this class except KeXevuy 
show a decided tendency to take oVcos). — XpiipaT^opat pass, 'receive a 
divine command' takes the inf. Mt. 2. 12, A. 10. 22 (in L. 2. "26 the 
inf. expresses an assertion). — 'E|opK^w iva occurs in Mt. 26. 63 
(opKi(u) or ivopK. with ace. and inf. in 1 Th. 5. 27). — Ae'-y» frequently 
takes iva, as well as the (ace. and) inf. when it expresses a command 
(iva is used in this way in Ap. 14. 13); similarly vpd<pw, e.g. 
yiypaTTTat iva Mc. 9. 12 (12. 19), and diro(TTe\\o> iva A. 16. 36, cp. 
supra 2. — rfcCOw iva Mt. 27. 20, elsewhere it takes ace. of the object 
and inf. — IIoiw iva is used in Jo. 11. 37, Col. 4. 16, Ap. 3. 9 7rot?;o-w 
auTovs iva tf^ovcriv, cp. 13. 12, 15 f. (in 15 iva is wanting in nB); iva 
has more of a final sense in Mc. 3. 14, cp. Wi]Ka iva Jo. 15. 16 (7roiw 
Tiva with inf. occurs in L. 5. 34 etc. ; classical Greek has also occa- 
sionally 7Toteiv Ö7TW? ' to cause that ') ; 7roteii' with ace. and inf. occurs 
in Mc. 1. 17 (Mt. 4. 19 double ace.), L. 5. 34 etc.; SiSovai (a Hebrew 
usage) is similarly used in A. 10. 40, 14. 3, 2. 27 O.T.— 'Ayyapmo iva 
Mt. 27. 32 (no instance of the inf.; oo-tis o-e dyyapevcrei [D -pevei] 
jiiXiov ev Mt. 5. 41). — 'Eä Teva only takes inf.; the commoner d</)ijj/xt 
' let ' also takes iva, Mc. 11. 16 ; KttTaAetVw nvd takes the inf. L. 10. 40 
(not so much an inf. of aim as of result, cp. Horn. II. P. 151. — 'EmTpeVw 
rivi only takes the inf. ; similarly k-wAi'w nvd (with this the verb 
Attic p,rj is not annexed to the simple inf., §§ 71, 3 ; 75, 4). — 'To be 
able,' 'to understand' etc. only take the inf.: Bvvapiat (Sward Paul), 
ur\V0} (KaTux^i'o» L. 21. 36 wB al.j V.l. KUTa^uodrJTe ; i^i(r\. E. 3. 18), 
<?X<«> Mt. 18. 25 (in the N.T. it also has the meaning 'to have to,' 'be 
obliged to,' L. 12. 50 ßdirTia-p-a e\io ßairTia-9?)vai, cp. Clem. Horn. 

§ 6q. 4-5.] PERIPHRASIS WITH Iva. 227 

i. 17, xii. 8), o78a Mt. 7. 1 1 etc., yiva>o-Kw Mt. 16. 3 ; further p.av6dvu) 
1 Tim. 5. 4 etc., rraiSevop-ai pass. 1. 20; Trpop-eXerw L. 21. 14, SiSacTKCo 
11. I (7TapaXap.ßdv(o Mc. 7. 4), SeiKvvw A. 10. 28, iVoSeiK. Mt. 3. 7. 
— The inf. is likewise used with 6§el\<a, jieXXa», el'uOa, <Jh\j> Mt. 6. 5 
(23. 6 f.), äpxo|«u (never with the participle in N.T., cp. § 73, 4) 1 , 

irpoo-Ti0€nai (a Hebraism, PpO"^ with p and inf.) 'continue to do,' 
'repeat' L. 20. 11, A. 12. 3 (LXX. also uses the active), KivSwevo) 

A. 19. 27,' 40, tt poa-TTOiov p.0.1 L. 24. 28, €in.\av0dvo|A(H 'forget to do ' 

Mt. 16. 5=Mc. 8. 14 (also in Attic), and its opposite irpo<r<?x«iv (not 
so used in Att.) Mt. 6. 1 (with iVa Barn. 16. 8). The construction 
with the inf. is very widely extended in individual instances, and 
used with far greater freedom than in Attic. Thus we have 
8iaßXe\j/eis eKßaXelv Mt. 7. 5, L. 6. 42; SoKLfxdfa 'approve,' ov 8ok. 
'disdain' 1 Th. 2. 4, R. 1. 28 (in Att. with inf. of opinion), cvSokw 
Col. 1. 19 with (ace. and) inf. (Polyb. i. 8. 4), o-vvevS. with inf. 
1 C. 7. 12 (ace. and inf. in Herrn. Sim. v. 2. 11, Iva ibid. 8). H. 11. 5 
ot'X eavrbv e86£ao-ev yevqdrjvai dp\iepea, like d^iovv. A. 25. 21 rov 
HuvXov e7riKa.Xeo-ap.evov Ti]pr)6yjvai avTov, like verbs of asking (the ß 
text reads differently). A. 15. 14 erreo-Kexparo Xaßelv, cp. L. 1. 25 
eTreiSev depeXelv. A. 14. 15 evayyeXt£6p,evoi i'/zas eiTLo-rpefaiv (D is 
different, using oVcos), 17. 21 eis ov8ev erepov rjvKaipovv r) Xeyetv Tt ... 
Kau'orepov (there is no need to supply eis to before the inf., since 
evKatpeiv takes the inf. in Lucian Amor. 33). R. 1. 10 evo8u>6-)] 
eXdelv, like 8vvapac. 1 Th. 2. 2 (E. 6. 20) (like 
toA/xw). Mc. 5. 32 TrepießXeTreTO ISeiv, 14. 8 irpoeXaßev p.vplo-ai (cp. 
the Attic use of <p6dvu> with partic. or inf., Trpo^ddo-y ßaXelv Clem. 
Cor. Ü. 8. 2). A. 16. 10 Trpoo-KeKX-qrat ?}yuas evayyeXio-ao-dai avrovs. 
H. 11. 8 VTrrjKovcrev e^eXOeuv. Tit. 3. 8 (ppovrifoo-tv irpoio-rao-Qai. 
L. 12. 45 xpovifoi Ipyeo-Qai. We have the same construction with 
longer phrases : nßevai (rtdeo-Oai) ev rrj Kap8lq. (tw ' to 
resolve,' 'to think of (a Hebraism) L. 21. 14, A. 19. 21, 17s 8n)voi£ev 
-i)v KapScav (a Hebraism) 7rpoo-'e\eiv A. 16. 14 (cp. the same phrase 
with tov and inf. in L. 24. 45) ; the following take 'Iva, ßovXrj eyevero 
A. 27. 42, deX-qp-d eo-Tiv Mt. 15. 14 etc.: eyevero oppvi) A. 14. 5 takes 
the inf.; cp. L. 2. 1, Jo. 13. 2, 34, A. 17. 15, E. 3. 8 etc. 

5. A similar relation between the infinitive and lya exists in the 
case of a series of impersonal expressions, whether they consist of a 
simple verb or combinations of Io-tiV with an adj., such as Set, 
o-vp,<pepei, e£eo"Ti, eyevero, Svvarov eoriv, dpeo-rov eo-riv. also in the case 
of combinations of Io-tiv with a substantive such as upa eo-riv, Kaipos 
eo-Tiv, and in the case of adjectives like Swards ä£ios ikcxvos eVoi/i.os 
used as predicates (with eo-rl) or as attributes. The infinitive might 
here be said to express the direction or goal. Equivalent to these 
are combinations like e^ovo-lav ex«, xpeiav e^w etc. In Attic öVws is 
excluded with expressions of this kind, wo-re is not entirely excluded 
(eo-Tiv wo-re 'it is possible that' Sophocles) ; in the N.T. ira may be 

1 Very common in Mt., Mc, Lc, often used almost superfluously, as in Mc. 
1. 45 rjptaro Kripi'iacrecv which is hardly distinguishable from iKripvaaev. 

228 INFINITIVE AND [§ 69. 5. 

used in all cases, except where a fact is stated to have taken place, 
as in the common phrase eyevero (cp. § 72, 5) and its classical equi- 
valent a-oveßi) (only in A. 21. 35), or where the close connection of 
the word with the inf. has become quite established, as with Set 1 and 
e£ecTTi (with the latter cp. IXtvßkpa eVrtv yaprjdijvat 1 C. 7. 39). 
Svp^pci tva occurs in Mt. 5. 29 f., 18. 6 etc., besides (ace. and) inf. 
'ApKtTov (sc. Icttlv) tva yevr/Tai Mt. 10. 25 (differing from äpKovviv Iva 
Jo. G. 7, where the result is stated, = ware) ; on the other hand the 
inf. is used in 1 P. 4. 3 apKCTos e'errtv 6 TrapeXyXvOws ^povos . . . Kareip- 
ycurOai. Awa/rov eVrt (A. 2. 24 with ace. and inf.) and Svvaros Ioti 
(somewhat more frequent) only take the inf. like Svvapai. Ovk dpi 
iKavos Iva is used in Mt. 8. 8, elsewhere the inf. 2 ; ovk dpi &£ios Iva 
Jo. I.27 (often with inf.; with rov and inf. 1 C. 16. 4, see § 71, 3 ; 
with a relative sentence L. 7. 4, § 65, 8). 2wTj8eid eV-riv Iva Jo. 18. 39; 
epxzrat (■>)) wpa £Va Jo. 12. 23, 13. 1, 16. 2, 32 (ace. and inf. as in 
Attic in R. 13. 11; (o) Kcupös [sc. ecrTt] tov ap^acrdai to npipa. 
1 P. 4. 17 ; cp. § 71, 3 3 ; elsewhere these words take öVe or ev y, 
ecTTat k. ore... dve£ovTai 2 Tim. 4. 3, kp^erai wpa ev y ... ukovo-ovctlv 
Jo. 5. 25, where the prediction is more definite, whereas Iva or the 
inf. states the tendency or drift of the impending event). Xpeiav e\w 
iva Jo. 2. 25, 16. 30, 1 Jo. 2. 27 ; elsewhere it takes inf., Mt. 3. 14 
etc., Jo. 13. 10 (with vtyao-Qai, the two verbs having the same subject, 
while in the Iva passages a new subject is introduced 4 ). 'E£ouo-£av 
e'x w takes inf. H. 13. 10, Ap. 11. 6; kS66y i£ovo-la inf. ibid. 13. 5 
(with wo-T£ Mt. 10. 1, vide sup. 3) ; SöVe ti)v i£ov(riu.v Tairn>;i' Iva A. s . 
19. With Iva must also be quoted 1 C 4. 3 epol els eXd^iarov eo-Ttv 
Iva. Tu epibv ßpwpd Io-tiv Iva Jo. 4. 34, cp. the passages quoted below 
in 6. "AvdpaHrov ovk k\(i) tVa ßdXy pe Jo. 5. 7, instead of <"s ßaXel or 
the Attic tov ßaXovvra, cp. § 65, 8. — Again Iva is used after a com- 
parative with ?'j : L. 17. 2 AvcrtTeAet airw et TrepLKeirai ... 1) 'iva a/car- 
SaAun/, 1 C 9. 15 KaAdv poi pdXXov aTrodavelv, 1) to Kai^ij/ia pov iva 
Tts K6V(oo-et (n*BD* have the bad reading ovSch for tva tis). — The 
infinitive is freely used in some special phrases such as in G. 5. 3 
öcpciAer/js ecrrtv ( = o^etAet) 7rot7yo-at, H. 4. I KaraXenropevys iirayyeXias 
elveXdelv (cp. aTroXeiTrerai, a7roKetTat with inf. in 4. 6, 9. 27): a classical 
use is 5. 11 Adyos Svareppyvevros Aeyetv (like Acvkos tSetv etc.; elsewhere 
not used in N.T.) ; another very classical use occurs in H. 9. 5 ovk 
eo-TLv vvv Aeyetv (Viteau p. 251). A peculiar use of the inf. is 6 
ey/ov <5t<x aKoueiv aKoueTu> Mc. 4. 9, L. 14. 35 and elsewhere (to hear, 
Swdpieva aKoi'etv), cp. wTa toG pi) aKovuv R. 11. 8 such ears that they 
cannot hear, § 71, 3. 

1 Still Barn. 5. 13 has e'Set iVa Trddrj. 

2 Cp. 7roXXd, niKpbv \elirei (is wanting) with iva and with inf. in Herrn. Vis. 
iii. 1. 9, Sim. ix. 9. 4. 

3 A peculiar instance is Ap. 11. 18 r[\0ev 6 xaipbs tQv vexpQv Kpidrjvai /ecu dovvai 
k.t.X., = iva Kpidwaiv ol vetcpol Kai ö(J>s k.t.X. ; cp. R. 9. 21 ex et e^ovfflav tov tttjXov, 
woirjaai k.t.X. 

4 1 Th. 4. 9 01'' xp^ av ^x°^ ev "Yp6-<t )a - v to/ifr H C D* al., tx eT€ ••• ypäcpeiv K*AD C al. 
incorrectly: a third reading which is also grammatically correct is 2x eT€ ■■■ 
ypacptadai ( = 5. l) H al. 

§ 6g. 6-8.] PERIPHRASIS WITH tva. 229 

6. Closely related to some of the expressions quoted under 4 and 
5 is the explanatory (accusative and) infinitive, preceded by a 
demonstrative; the demonstrative may also be omitted without 
rendering the construction with the infinitive thereby impossible. 

"Iva may here also take the place of the infinitive. Ja. 1. 27 dprjo-Keia 
KaOapa . . . avTT] ko~Tiv, £7rio-K€7TT€cröai 6p<jxtvovs, A. 15. 28 p.i)Slv TrXkov eViTt'öecröat ßdpos ttXtjv tovtqjv twv e7rdVayKes, dne^ea-dai k.t.A., 
1 Th. 4. 3 rovro yap ecrriv rb 6eXr]p.a toC Oeov, 6 dyiaoy/,bs vp.uiv, 
dwexecrdai vpds k.t.A., E. 3. 8 (cp. without a demonstr. and with iva 
1 C. 16. 12). With 1 va : L. 1. 43 kcu irodtv p.01 tovto, iva 'kX6y 17 
P-qrrjp rod Kvptov p.ov irpbs kpk (here somewhat irregular, as the clause 
introduced by iva is already a fact), Jo. 15. 8 kv rovrw kSogdo-dy 6 
TraT-qp p.ov, iva Kapirbv iroXvv c^ep^Te, = kv tw cpepuv v/j.ds (conception 
and wish, not actual fact), 1 Jo. 5. 3 avTrj yap ko-rcv ->) dyaTrrj tov Oeov, 
iva ras evToAas avrov rt]pwp.ev. It is specially frequent in John, see 
further 6. 39, 17. 3, 1 Jo. 3. 11, 23, 4. 21, 2 Jo. 6 (without a 
demonstr. Jo. 4. 34, supra 5); akin to this use are 1 Jo. 3. 1 (iroTair^v 
dyaTrrjv ... 'iva), 1 C. 9. 18 (rls p-ov ecrriv 6 puo-Oos ; 'iva). A further 
noteworthy instance is Jo. 15. 13 p,ei£ova tortus dydiryv ovSets k\ € h 
'iva rvjv ij/i'xrjv auTOU drj ( = tou delvai), cp. 3 Jo. 4. But if the 
epexegetical phrase consists of facts, John uses not iva but on (§ 70, 
3): 1 Jo. 3. 16 kv towtü) kyvioKaptev rrjv dydir-qv, on eKeivos ... ttjv 
xj/vx'ijv avrov Wi]Kev, or again if the fact is only supposed to take 
place, kdv or örav is used : 1 Jo. 2. 3 kv toi'tw yiv(i)(TKop.ev on ..., kdv 
Ti]pujp.ev, 5. 2 kv t. y. ort ..., örav dyairu)p.ev. 

7. The infinitive with irpi'v (or rrplv rj which is not such good 
Attic) belongs, generally speaking, to this series of infinitives, which 
correspond to a conjunctive and not to an indicative : although 'iva 
cannot be introduced in this case, and the conjunctive, where it is 
used, is sharply distinguished from the infinitive, viz. the conjunctive 
stands after a negative principal sentence, the infinitive after a 
jiositive sentence (as in Attic). 1 Mt. 1. 18 irplv r) crweXOeiv airovs, 
evpkOr) k.t.X., 26. 34, 75 7rplv (rj is added by A in verse 75; L. 22. 61 
rj add. B; Mc. 14. 30 ■>} om. ND, 72 no MSS. have ?')) dXkhcropa (f>mn]o-ai 
rph dirapv-fjo-y p.e, Jo. 4. 49, 8. 5a, 2 14. 29, A. 2. 20 O.T., 7. 2 (never 
in the Epistles). In a similar way to this Trpiv, npb rod with the inf. 
may also be used, e.g. in Mt. 6. 8, L. 2. 21, G. 2. 12, 3. 23, especially 
in the case of a fact which is regarded as really taking place at a 
subsequent time, though Trpiv is not excluded in this case, A. 7. 2, 
Jo. 8. 58 (so in Attic). IlptV with the conj. or optat. in the respective 
cases (for the opt. of indirect speech see § 66, 5) after a negative 
principal sentence is found only in Luke, see § 65, 10. 

8. "With regard to the voice of the verb, it is noticeable that after 

1 The conj. (without üv) is used after a, positive principal sentence, and there- 
fore incorrectly, in Herrn. Sim. v. 7. 3. 

2 D has Trpiv 'Aßpaäfj. without the inf. yeveadai, so that Trpiv is used as a pre- 
position (with the gen.), like eus with the gen., § 40, 6. Cp. Stephanus Trpiv 
(irplv üpas Pindar Pyth. 4, 43 ; often in Josephus ; Arrian al.), W. Schniid de 
Joseph, eloc. 395. 

230 INFIN. AND PERIPHRASIS WITH Iva. [§69. 8. §70. 1-2. 

verbs of commanding the inf. pass, is used instead of the inf. act. in 
a manner that is more characteristic of Latin than of classical Greek, 
if it is necessary to state that something is to be done to a person, 
without mentioning the agent. 1 Mt. 18. 25 eKeXevaev avrbv wpaOyvai, 
A. 23. 3 Kekeveis pe rv-reo-Oai, and so frequently with KeAeiW in Mt. 
and Lc. (who alone use this verb, supra 4). On the other hand we 
have A. 23. 10 e/ceAevcre to o-Tpa.T€vji.a dpirdcrai avrov (16. 22 e/ceAeuov 
fjaßSifav is contrary to the above rule). A. 5. 21 dirtoreiXav ä^övyvat 
avToi's, 22. 24 ei'iras /JMOTi^lV dverd^ioSai avrov, Mc. G. 27 lirera^tv 
ev€)(6ijvai (t*BC evey/eat) rr/v KtfpaXiqv avrov (but in 6. 39 kirkro.^€v 
avTois ai'aKAtvat Trarras), A. 24. 23 (Scara^a/xtyos), L. 8. 55 (ßura^iv), 
L. 19. 15 (eTirev), A. 25. 2 1 (eTrtKaXeo-apevov), 1 Th. 5. 27 ([ei/]o/3/a£io), 2 
A. 13. 28 (ijnjo-avro, cp. Clem. Cor. i. 55. 4). 


1. The complement of verbs of (perceiving), believing, (showing), 
saying, in respect of the purport of the idea or communication in 
question, is in classical Greek rendered to a great extent by the 
infinitive, the subject of which, if identical with that of the governing 
verb, is not expressed, while in other cases it is placed in the 
accusative. The participle is an alternative construction for the 
infinitive, see § 73, 5 ; in addition to these constructions, the com- 
plement of verbs of perceiving, showing, saying (not of verbs of 
believing) is often formed by means of an indirect question, and a 
development of this use is the construction with ön (strictly ö\n an 
indirect interrogative particle), which is allowable with these same 
verbs (and therefore not with verbs of believing). Lastly, as a less 
definitely 3 analytical expression, ws with a finite verb is also in use 
with verbs of saying, hearing etc. 

2. In the N.T. the infinitive has not indeed gone out of use in 
connection with these verbs, but it has taken quite a subordinate 
place, while the prevailing construction is that with on. The in- 
direct question is kept within its proper limits, ws is found almost 
exclusively in Luke and Paul and preserves more or less clearly its 
proper meaning of 'how,' though it is already becoming interchange- 
able with 7tws, which in late Greek assumes more and more the 
meaning of on 4 ; lastly, the nnclassical combination ws on occurs three 

1 And even where the agent is mentioned in Herrn. Sim. ix. S. 3 eufKevcre Sid 
Ttov TrapOevwv direvex^V vai ' 

2 Buttm. 236 f., who rightly rejects the following readings, Mc. 5. 43 dovvai 
(D) instead of dodrjvai, 6. 27 iviyKai (NBCA) instead of €vex9v i/a h A. 22. 24 dve- 
rdfciv (D*) instead of -ecröai, and also in Mc. 10. 49 prefers dirtv axrbv (pwfrjdTJvai 
(ADX al.) to el-n-ev (pwvqaare avrbv (NBCLA). In Mc. S. 7 the mss. are divided 
between elnev ((K^Xevcrev of U is wrong) Trapadelvai - waparideyai - waparedrjvai (A, 
cp. apponi vulg. it.) - wapedrjKtv (fr**, without elirev) ; iraparedrivai. is the reading 
commended by the usage of the language (Buttm.). 

■'Riemann Revue de philol. N.S. vi. 73. 

4 'fls is used in Mc. 12. 26 after dvayivwaKeiv (v.l. 7tü)s), L. 6. 4 (dvay. ; v.l. 7ruis, 
om. BD), L. 8. 47 {dwayytXXuv ; Ü 6'rt), 23. 55 (dcaadai), 24. 6 (/uLi>ri<rd?)vai ; I) 6Va), 


times in Paul. 1 The point above all to be noticed is that the use, 
which is so largely developed in classical Greek, of the indirect form 
of speech with the (ace. and) infinitive, is almost entirely wanting ; 
it may be said that Luke is the only writer who uses it at any 
length, and even he very quickly passes over into the direct form, 
see A. 25. 4 f., 1. 4. — Details : verbs of perceiving (recognizing and 
knowing) with the ace. and inf. Akov«iv Jo. 12. 18, 1 C. 11. 18 (i.e. 
to receive a communication [so in classical Greek] ; elsewhere it takes 
the participle and more commonly on), (Qwptiv and ßkk-n-eiv take 
ort Mc. 16. 4 etc.; not the inf., but part., § 73, 5.) Tivwo-ksiv takes 
ace. and inf. in H. 10. 34 (in classical Greek only with the meaning 
'to pass judgment,' which may also be adopted in this passage); the 
prevailing construction is on, cp. Participles § 73, 5. ElSeW in L. 4. 
41, 1 P. 5. 9 (Clem. Cor. i. 43. 6, 62. 3) takes ace. and inf. (as 
occasionally in class. Greek), elsewhere the partic. and usually on 
(ws), which is also the usual construction with eirto-rao-dai. Kara- 
Xafj.ßdveo-0ai ' to recognize,' ' find ' (post-classical ; cp. Att. -veiv) takes 
ace. and inf. in A. 25. 25 ; elsewhere ort (4. 13, 10. 34). — To believe 
etc. contrary to Attic usage very largely take on : Soksiv ' to think ' 
takes (ace. and) inf. in L. 8. 18, 24. 37, A. 12. 9, Jo. 5. 39, 16. 2, 

2 C. 11. 16 etc., on in Mt. 6. 7 etc. (so almost always except in Lc. 
and Paul ; there is a second reading in Mc. 6. 49) ; but SoKelv ' to 
seem ' only takes inf. (Lc, Paul, Hebrews ; Herrn. Sim. ix. 5. 1 
eSo/cei fxoi impers. with ace. and inf.), similarly eSo£e /xot 'it seemed 
good to me' (only in Lc, literary language, § 69, 4). 'EXtti^iv takes 
inf. in L. 6. 34, E. 15. 24 and elsewhere in Lc. and Paul (the fut. 
inf. in A. 26. 7 B, elsewhere the aorist, § 61, 3), and in 2 Jo. 12, 

3 Jo. 14; on in A. 24. 26, 2 C. 1. 13 and elsewhere in Lc. and Paul. 
Ex«iv TLvb. Ön ' to reckon' (Lat. habere, a Latinism, cp. § 34, 5) Mc. 
11. 32 (D rj8cLo-av). 'H-y€io-0ai takes ace and inf. in Ph. 3. 8 (for the 
double ace § 34, 5). KpCveiv, 'to decide that something is,' takes ace. and 
inf. in A. 16. 15, tovto ön in 2 C. 5. 15 ; 'to decide that something 
should be' ('to choose,' 'conclude ') takes inf. in A. 15. 19, 1 C. 2. 2, 
ace. and inf. in A. 25. 25 (rov with inf. in 27. 1 ; this construction 
like e<5o£e fj-oi belongs to the same category as ßovXeo-6ai, KeXeveiv etc., 
§ 69, 4). Ao-yi£«r0ai, ' to decide,' takes (ace. and) inf. in E. 3. 28, 
14. 14, 2 C. 11. 5, Ph. 3. 13; On in E 8. 18, Jo. 11. 50, H. 11. 19 
(in John and Hebr. 'to reflect,' 'say to oneself,' as in 2 C. 10. 11 ; 
with this meaning on is not un classical). Noetv ace. and inf. H. 11. 3; 
ön Mt. 15. 17 etc. (both unclassical). Nop.£?€iv takes (ace. and) inf. 
in L. 2. 44 and elsewhere in Lc. and Paul (iv6/ii£ov solebant with 
inf. A. 16. 13?); ön in Mt. 5. 17 etc., A. 21. 29 (the ace. and inf. 

24. 35 {e&yelvdai ; D Sri), A. 10. 28 (otdare, cbs ddefitTov), 38 (eiriffTaaOu ; D reads 
differently), 20. 20 (eiriur.; ttQs is used previously in verse 18), R. 1. 9 and Ph. 
1. 8 and 1 Th. 2. 10 (fidprvs) and in a few passages elsewhere. IIws (Hatzidakis 
Einl. in d. ngr. Gramm. 19) occurs in Mt. 12. 4 after av ay ivuxtkuv, Mc. 12. 41 
with edeüpeL, L. 14. 7 with i-rrtxuv, A. 11. 13 awfiyyeWev , 1 Th. 1. 9. Barn. 14. 
6, Clem. Cor. i. 19. 3, 21. 3, 34. 5, 37. 2, 56. 16. 

'2C. 5. 19, 11. 21, 2 Th. 2. 2. See on this late usage of the language 
Sophocles Lex. s.v. ws (Clem. Horn. i. 7). 


would have been ambiguous). 1 CHWOcu (ace. and) inf. Jo. 21. 25 
(last verse of the Gospel), Ph. 1. 17; ort Ja. 1. 7. neteeo-Bcu (ace. 
and) inf. L. 20. 6, A. 26. 26 (apparently with on in H. 13. 8, but 
the passage is probably corrupt; v.l.; similarly the (ace. 
and) inf. is used with TrcTrotdkvai R 2. 19, 2 C. 10. 7; ort in K. 8. 38 
etc.; Ph. 2. 24 etc. Uia-Ttinv takes inf. in A. 15. 11, R 14. 2 ; Sti 
passim. üpoo-SoKäv takes (ace. and) inf. A. 3. 5 (aor. inf.), 28. 6 (with 
piXXeu' TTiix77pao-dat). YiroKpCv€o-0ai ace. and inf. L. 20. 20. YiroXap.- 
ßdveiv takes 'on in L. 7. 43 (this is also classical, Plato Apol. 35 a). 
'Yirovotiv ace. and inf. A. 13. 25, 27. 27. On the whole, therefore, 
the use of the infinitive with verbs of believing is, with some very 
rare exceptions, limited to Lc. and Paul (Hebrews), being 'a remnant 
of the literary language ' (Viteau, p. 52). 

3. Verbs of saying, showing etc. take on with a finite verb to a 
very large extent, as do also the equivalent expressions such as 
[idpTvpa eiTLKaXovfxat, rov deov 2 C 1. 23, avrrj icrrlv 7/ p.aprup{a 1 Jo. 5. 
II, Icrrlv airn? 77 ayyikCa. 1 Jo. 1. 5, cva TrXijpwOr) 6 Xoyos Jo. 15. 25, 
dveßq <J>d(ris A. 21. 31, iv ovofxan Mc. 9. 41 ('for the reason that, 
' on the ground that ') ; further, adjectives like Brjkov (sc. lern') take 
this construction. Special mention may be made of <j>dvai on 1 C. 
10. 19, 15. 50 (with ace. and inf. in R. 3. 8), whereas in classical 
Greek this verb hardly ever takes on (any more than it takes an 
indirect question). AaXctv on is rare, H. 11. 18, this verb never 
takes ace. and inf.; the commoner construction is iXdX^crev Xiyuv 
like ixpa^ev Xiywv, aTTCKpWi) Aeywv etc., the usual phrase formed on 

the model of the Hebrew ("172X2 IS'T), cp. § 74, 3. Kpdfav, (a.7ro)(f>6ey- 
yccrOai, (fxüvcLv never take on or ace. and inf., diroKpCv€o-0ai only in Lc. 
(20. 7 with inf., A. 25. 4 ace. and inf., 25. 16 on), ßoäv only in A. 25. 24 
takes the inf. Opvieiv on occurs in Mt. 26. 74, Ap. 10. 6 (unclassical; 
it takes the aor. inf. in A. 2. 30, the fut. inf. as in class. Greek in 
H. 3. 18); on is also used with other expressions of asseveration 
such as 'icrnv uXijöcLa tou XpicrToij iv ip.01, on 2 C. 11. IO, cp. (Clem. 
Cor. i. 58. 2), G. 1. 20, R 14. n, 2 C. 1. 23 (vide supra). The use 
of the (ace. and) inf., as compared with that of ort, is seldom found 
in writers other than Lc. and Paul : Xiytiv takes ace. and inf. in Mt. 
16. 13, 15, 22. 23 = Mc. 8. 27, 29, 12. 18, Jo. 12. 29 etc., KaTaKpCvHv 
in Mc. 14. 64, €mp.apn>p€iv in 1 P. 5. 12, tTra.yyi\\t<rQa.i takes the inf. in 
Mc. 14. 11, A. 7. 5 ; in Lc. and Paul the following verbs also take 

this construction, Gra-ayyeAAetv A. 12. 14, irpoKara-yytWeiv 3. 18, dirap- 
v£i<r0ai L. 22. 34, 8uo"x.vp^€(r0ai A. 12. 15, (xaprupeiv 10. 43, irpoaiTiao-0ai 

R 3. 9, <T7ip.aCv€iv A. 11. 28, xp^aTij^iv to predict L. 2. 26 ; while the 
ort used with 7rapayyeAAeii' to command in 2 Th. 3. 10 is a or* 
recitativum (infra 4). — Verbs of showing (which may be regarded as 
the causatives of verbs of perceiving) in Attic Greek, in cases where 
on is not used, generally express the complement by means of the 

1 Thuc. iii. 88 is quite wrongly adduced as an instance of vofxlfav 6Vt. 

2 R. 14. 2 TriijTevei. <payelv iravra. lUffreüeiv here therefore means not 'believe,' 
but to have confidence and dare. 

§ 70. 3-5. § 7i. 1-2.] INFINITIVE WITH ARTICLE. 233 

participle (SetKvvvat, 8-qkovv, also 4>avep6s et'/xt etc.; occasionally also 
cbrayyeAAeii' and the like). In the N.T. Ave find eVtSecKvuvat A. 18. 
28 and 8rj\ovv H. 9. 8 with ace. and inf. (which is not contrary to 
Attic usage), 1 v-n-o8uKvvvai A. 20. 35 and <f>avepovo-6ai pass. 2 C. 3. 3, 
1 Jo. 2. 19 with on (ffravepovv takes ace. and inf. in Barn. 5. 9); so 
SrjKov (Trp68r]Xov) on 1 C. 15. 27, G. 3. n, H. 7. 14; instances of the 
use of the participle are entirely wanting. 

4. By far the most ordinary form of the complement of verbs of 
saying is that of direct speech, which may be introduced by on (the 
so-called on recitativum), for which see § 79, 12. An indirect state- 
ment after verbs of perceiving and believing is also assimilated to the 
direct statement so far as the tense is concerned, see §§ 56, 9; 57, 6 ; 
59, 6 ; 60, 2. "On is used quite irregularly with the ace. and inf. 
after ötwpw in A. 27. 10; in A. 14. 22 we can more readily tolerate 
kgu on (equivalent to Ae-yovres on) with a finite verb following 
7ra/3aKaAetv with an infinitive. 

5. The very common use in the classical language of dv with the 
infinitive ( = dv with indie, or optat. of direct speech) is entirely 
absent from the N.T. (wo-dv with the inf. is not connected with this 
use, § 78, 1). 


1. The article with an infinitive strictly has the same (anaphoric) 
meaning which it has with a noun ; but there is this difference 
between the two, that the infinitive takes no declension forms, and 
consequently the article has to be used, especially in all instances 
where the case of the infinitive requires expression, without regard 
to its proper meaning and merely to make the sense intelligible. 
The use of the infinitive accompanied by the article in all four cases, 
and also in dependence on the different prepositions, became more 
and more extended in Greek ; consequently the N.T. shows a great 
abundance of usages of this kind, although most of them are not 
widely attested, and can be but very slightly illustrated outside the 
writings which were influenced by the literary language, namely 
those of Luke and Paul (James). See Viteau, p. 173. The rarest of 
these usages is the addition to the infinitive of an attribute in the 
same case (which even in classical Greek is only possible with a 
pronoun) : the only N.T. instance is H. 2. 15 Sia Travrus rov (rjv. 

2. The nominative of the infinitive with the article, as also the 
accusative used independently of a preposition, are found sporadically 
in Mt. and Mc, somewhat more frequently in Paul, and practically 
nowhere in the remaining writers ; they are generally used in such 
a way that the anaphoric meaning of the article, with reference to 
something previously mentioned or otherwise well known, is more 
or less clearly marked. Mt. 15. 20 t6 cu'iVtois \epcrlv fyaydv subj. 

1 On <tvvictt&i>cu with ace. and inf. in 2 C. 7. 11 (?) see § 38, 2 note. 


(see verse 2) : 20. 23 tu nadio-ai obj. (KaÖio-wo-iv verse 21): Mc. 9. 10 
to di'acrnyi'ai (9 dvaxTTQ ; D has otolv Ik veKptJv dvacrn/) : 12. 33 to 
dyot7rdi' (see 30): A. 25. II Öai'üiTov ... to aTO^ai/eii/ : R. 4. 13 7} 
eVayyeAia . . . to K\i]pov6pov airroi/ ei^ai (epexegetical to eVayy. : the 
art. in both cases denoting something well known): 7. 18 to BeXtiv ... 
to KaTepyufco-Oai, ideas which have already been the subjects of 
discussion; cp. 2 C. 8. 10 f. (to' is added as the opposite of to 

TTOiija-ai), Ph. 2. 13 (do.), 1. 29 (do.), 1. 21 f., 24: P. 13. 8 to dAA//Aoi>s 

dyewrdv (the well-known precept): 1 C. 11. 6 Keipda-Oot ■>) £vpdo-6u> ... 
to Kupao~6aL ?/ £vpao-dat : 7. 26, 1 14. 39, 2 C. 7. II, Ph. 2. 6, 4. IO to 
V7J-C/3 e/zou (ppoveiv (which you have previously done ; but FG read 
toi", cp. § 19, 1), H. 10. 31 (in G. 4. 18 «ABC omit to). The force 
of the article is not so clear in 2 C. 9. 1 irepicro-ov cctti t6 ypdcpetv, cp. 
Demosth. 2. 3 to 8ie£tevai ... ov\l KaAtos c^etv i)yov/xaL (the article 
denotes something obvious, which might take place), Herrn. Vis. iv. 
2. 6 alpenarepov yi> avrois t6 pi] yewt]6rjvai. But its use is still more 
lax with jxt) in 2 C. 10. 2 Seopai to p) Tra/awy dapprja-ai 2 , P. 14. 13, 21, 
2 C. 2. 1, and quite superfluous in 1 Th. 3. 3 to (om. «ABD al.) 
Lt-qSeva <raiveo-dai, 4. 6 to ///>) virepßaiveiv (whereas there is no art. ill 
verses 3 f. with d7re^ecr0ai and eiSevai) ; this to p.->] (like totj pij, infra 
3) is equivalent to a Iva clause, and is found to a certain extent 
similarly used in classical writers after a verb of hindering (KctTe'xeu' 
to /at) SaKpveiv Plato, Phaedo 117 C), while Seopai to BappTjcraL without 
a p.-q would clearly be impossible even in Paul. 3 

3. The genitive of the infinitive, not dependent on a preposition, 
has an extensive range in Paul and still more in Luke ; it is found 
to a limited degree in Matthew and Mark, but is wholly, or almost 
wholly, absent from the other writers. According to classical usage 
it may either be dependent on a noun or verb which governs a 
genitive, or it is employed (from Thucydides onwards, but not ven r 
frequently) to denote aim or object (being equivalent to a final sen- 
tence or an inf. with evexa). Both uses occur in the N.T., but the 
manner of employing this inf. has been extended beyond these 
limits, very much in the same way that the use of tva has been 
extended. It is found after nouns such as xpovos, Kaipos, Zgovo-ia, 
Ita-fe, xP £l ' a: L - 1- 57» 2 - 6 > ! P- 4 - l 7, L. 10. 19, 22. 6, A. 27. 20, 
1 C. 9. 10, R. 15. 23, H. 5. 12 ; in these cases the inf. without the 
art. and the periphrasis with iVa may also be used, § C>9, 5, without 
altering the meaning (whereas in Attic a rov of this kind ordin- 
arily keeps its proper force), and passages like L. 2. 21 eVAv/o-ÖJio-ai' 
i)pepai oktw toP 7rcpiTe/zetf avrnv show a very loose connection 
between the inf. and the substantive (almost = wo-tc TrepiTepeiv, tVa 

1 In this passage and in 2 C. 7. 11 (R. 14. 13, 2 C. 2. 1) tovto precedes, but 
the pronoun in no way occasions the use of the art., cp. (without an art.) 1 C. 
7. 37 etc., § 69, 6 (Buttm. p. 225). 

2 In A. 4. 18 wapriyyetXav to (om. «*B) Kadö\ov /xr/ (pd&yyeo-Oai. the article, if 
correctly read, should be joined with Ka$6\ov, cp. § 34, 7, Diod. Sic. 1. 77. 

3 A parallel from the lxx. is quoted (Viteau, p. 164), viz. 2 Esdr. 6. S to /utj 
KarapyTjdfjvai, ' that it may not be hindered. ' 


TreptTe/iwcrtv). Cp. further R. 8. 12 o<£eiAeTai ...rov Kara crdpi<a £vyv, 
R. 1. 24 aKaöapcrtav, tov drifid^crdai, = ü<TT€ dr.; the connection with 
the subst. is quite lost in 1 C. 10. 13 Ti]V eKyßacrtv, tov Svvao-dai 
VTreveyKtiv, R. 11. 8 O.T. d(pda\povs tov fxi] ßXkire.LV Kai wra tot; p.i) 
aKoveiv, 'such eyes that they' etc. (ibid. 10 O.T. o-KOTio-diJTwo-av ol 
6<p6. tov jxij ßX.). Also A. 14. 9 on e^ei ttio-tlv tov <r<adf}vai, the faith 
necessary to salvation, = ir. okrTe crioÜTJvai ; Ph. 3. 21 rrjv evepytiav rov 
Svvacrdai (the force whereby He is able), rj -n-podvpia töv deXeiv 
2 C. 8. 11 the zeal to will, which makes one willing. With adjectives 
we have a£iov tov iropeveadai 1 C. 16. 4 as in classical Greek; the 
instances with verbs, which in classical Greek govern the genitive, 
are equally few, e£airop7]dr}vaL tov (fiv 2 C. 1. 8 (diropeiv Ttvos ; also 
igaTTopelo-dai. tivos Dionys. Hal.), eAa^ev tov Ovpudcrai L. 1. 9 (LXX. 
has the same use in 1 Sam. 14. 47 ; but in classical Greek in spite of 
Xayxdveiv Ttvos this verb only takes the simple inf., and the rov with 
the inf. corresponds rather to its free use in the examples given 
below). The construction of tov p,rj and the inf. with verbs of 
hindering, ceasing etc. (La, but also in the LXX.) has classical pre- 
cedent, e.g. Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 1 1 7ras cictkos 8vo dvSpas e£e6 tov p.i) 
KaTa&Gvou ; but the usage is carried further, and tov p.!] clearly has 
the meaning 'so that not' : L. 4. 42 (KaTex«v), 24. 16 (Kpareto-Öat), 
A. 10. 47 (fcwAveiv), 14. 18 (Kara— ai'eiv), 20. 20, 27 (v7roo-TeAAeo-#ou ; 
D incorrectly omits the py), also L. 17. 1 di4v8a<T6v Icttl tov p) ... 
(cp. from the O.T. 1 P. 3. 10 naveiv, R. 11. 10 o-KOTio-6r}mi, vide 
supra 1 ). Paul however has this inf. without p-y, so that its dependence 
on the principal verb is clear, R. 15. 22 kva<07rT6pip> tov kXdeiv. Cp. 
to p.rf, supra 2. — A final (or consecutive) sense is the commonest 
sense in which tov and tov firj are used in the N.T.: Mt. 13. 3 
££i}X6ev 6 anreipwv tov o-ireipeuv, 2. 13 ^tciv to? a7roAeo-GU, 21. 32 p.ere- 
pieXrjdijTt tov Tuo-Tevo-ai (so as to), 3. 13, 11. I, 24. 45 (om. tov D), 
H. 10. 7 (O.T.), 11. 5. The simple inf. has already acquired this 
final sense ; there is a tendency to add the tov to the second of two 
infinitives of this kind for the sake of clearness : L. 1. 76 f, 78 f., 
2. 22, 24, A. 26. 18. The tov is then used in other cases as well, 
being attached in numerous instances at any rate in Luke (especially 
in the Acts ; occasionally in James) to infinitives of any kind what- 
ever after the example of the LXX. 2 : it is found after eye veto 
A. 10. 25 (not in D, but this MS. has it in 2. 1), Ixpid-q 27. 1, cp. 
eyeveTO yvwp.rjs tov 20. 3 (dveßrj eVt ti)v napSiav Herrn. Vis. iii. 7. 2), 
e7rio-TeiAat 15. 20, TrapaxaXelv 21. 12, evTeAAea-#cu L. 4. io O.T. 
(Ps. 90. 11), 7rpocrei'xeo-#ai Ja. 5. 17, Karavevetv L. 5. 7, o-Ti]pi£etv T0 
Trpoo-wTTOv 9. 51, o-vvTidecrOaL A. 23. 20, 3. 12, eroipos 23. 15 
(Herrn. Sim. viii. 4. 2). The only infinitive which cannot take the 
tov is one which may be resolved into a 6V1 clause : it is the possi- 
bility of substituting iW or wo-tc for it which forms the limitation to 

1 The LXX. has Gen. 16. 2 awenXeiaev tov /at) ..., 20. 6 e<peio-äfxr]v crov tov jj.t) ... 
Ps. 38. 2 (/>uXd£w tcls odous fiov tov ^77 ..., 68. 24 ( = R. 11. 10). Viteau, p. 172. 

2 E.g. in 1 Kings 1. 35 after ivtTeikäß-qv, Ezek. 21. 11 and 1 Mace. 5. 39 after 
eroi/xos. Viteau, p. 170. 


its use. 1 It is especially frequent in an explanatory clause loosely 
appended to the main sentence : L. 24. 25 ßpaöels rg KapSla, tou 
7ri(TT€vcrat (in believing ; tov tt. ora. D), cp. ßpa.8. els to infra 4, 
A. 7. 19 (KaKwaev to is irarepas, to? irotelv- (so as to make, in that he 
made, =7rotwv or xal eiroUi), L. 1. 73, R. 6. 6, 7. 3, Ph. 3. 10 
(R. 1. 24, 1 C. 10. 13, vide supra). A quite peculiar instance is 
Ap. 12. 7 eyeveTO —oAe/zos ev tw ovpavw, o Mi^a^A /<«t 01 ayyeAoi avTOv 
toC (tou om. hB) TroXeprjcrai p.era tov S/dukovtos ('it happened ... that 
there fought . . . '). 3 

4. The dative of the inf. without a preposition is found only once 
in Paul to denote reason: 2 C. 2. 13 ovk co-y^ko. dvea-iv tw 7rvei'- 
[laTL p.ov, tw fxrj evpeiv p.e Tltov (LP to p.i), n*C~ toP p.r), both readings 
impossible ; but DE perhaps correctly have ev tw p), cp. inf. 6). 

5. Prepositions with the accusative of the infinitive. Els to 
denotes aim or result ( = tVa or wcn-e) : Mt. 20. 19 TrapaSwo-owiv els 
t6 efiiral£ai, cp. 26. 2, 27. 31, Mc. 14. 55 (iVa öayaTwo-oi'o-iv D), 
L. 5. 17 (D reads differently), A. 7. 19, Ja. 1. 18, 3. 3 (v.l. 7r/3os), 
1 P. 3. 7, 4. 2 ; very frequent in Paul (and Hebrews), R. 1. 11, 20, 
3. 26, 4. ii bis, 16, 18 etc., also used very loosely as in 2 C. 8. 6 els 
to TrapaKaXeo-ai ' to such an extent that we exhorted ' ; further 
notable instances are 1 Th. 3. 10 8e6p.evoi els to I8etv, — Iva Z8u>p.ev, 
§ 69, 4 : tt)v kiTiQvp\ia.v e^wv els to dvaXvcrai Ph. 1. 23 (DEFG omit 
els, which gives an impossible construction). (This use of els is 
nowhere found in the Johannine writings ; on the other hand it is 
found in the First Epistle of Clement, e.g. in 65. 1 where it is parallel 
with öVws.) It is used in another way in Ja. 1. 19 ra^vs els to a/covo-cu, 
ßpaSvs els to \a\rjo-ai, ßpa8vs els opyrjv, the inf. being treated as equi- 
valent to a substantive (Herrn. Mand. i. 1 6 rronjo-as Ik tov p.i) ovtos 
els to elvai to. -rravTa, like irotetv els vxpos Clem. Cor. i. 59. 3). — Aim 
(or result) is likewise denoted by irpos to, which however is nowhere 
very frequent : Mt. 5. 28 6 ßkeirojv yvvaiKa irpbs to e-iÖi>/x>/o-ai avrijs, 
6. I irpos to Oeadrjvai avTols, 13. 30, 23. 5, 26. 12, Mc. 13. 22, 
L. 18. 1 (rrpos to oeh' Trpocrev)(eo-6aL, with reference to), A. 3. 19 nB 
(rell. els), 2 C. 3. 13, Eph. 6. 11 (DEFG «'s), 1 Th. 2. 9, 2 Th. 3. 8.— 
Aid to to denote the reason is frequent in Luke : 2. 4, 8. 6 etc., 
A. 4. 2, 8. n etc.; also in Mt. 13. 5, 6, 24. 12, Mc. 4. 5, 6, 5. 4 (D 
is different), Jo. 2. 24 (Syr. Sin. omits the whole clause), Ja. 4. 2, 
Ph. 1. 7 (the solitary instance in Paul), H. 7. 23 f., 10. 2. — Merd tö 
is used in statements of time : Mt. 26. 32, Mc. 1. 14, 14. 28 [16. 19], 
L. 12. 5, 22. 20, A. 1. 3, 7. 4, 10. 41, 15. 13, 19. 21, 20. 1, 1 C. 11. 25, 
H. 10. 15, 26. — The accus, of the inf. is nowhere found with hrt, 

KttTOl, Trupd. 

1 In Hermas, however, even this limit is transgressed, Mand. xii. 4. 6 o-eavrif 

K^KplKCLS TOV /XT) 5lW(T0CU, = OTl Ol' OlWcTCU. 

2 There is an exact parallel in the lxx., 1 Kings 17. 20 av «(cd/cw/cas tov dava- 
7-uxrcu tov vibv avTrjs. 

3 Buttmann, p. 231 ; the nom. with the inf. is certainly quite a barbarism. 
A forced explanation, by supplying rjcrav with TroXefxrjcrai, is given by Viteau, 16S. 

§71-6-7. §72-1.] INF. WITH ART. CASES WITH INF. 237 

6. Prepositions with the genitive of the infinitive. 'AvtI tov 
'instead of Ja. 4. 15. Aid 7tcu'tos tov tfjv H. 2. 15 'all through life,' 
cp. supra 1 ad fin. 'Ek tov e\av 2 C. 8. 11, probably = xaSb av e'xj? 
of verse 12 (pro facidtatibus, Grimm). "Ev«k£v to? <£avepwö?}vai 
2 C. 7. 12 (formed on the model of the preceding eve/cev to£ 
äSi/o;cravTos k.t.X.; otherwise evenev would be superfluous). "E«s tov 
ZXdeZv A. 8. 40 (post-classical, in the lxx. Gen. 24. 33, Viteau) ; the 
Attic use of ^XP 1 ("XPO to ^ with the inf. does not occur, npö tov 
Mt. 6. 8, L. 2. 21, 22. 15, A. 23. 15, Jo. 1. 49, 13. 19, 17. 5, G. 2. 12, 
3. 23. The gen. of the inf. is nowhere found with <xtt6, ptTa, irepi, 
virkp, nor yet with ävev, x^pfe, X C ¥ MV e ^ c - 

7. The preposition ev is used with the dative of the infinitive, 
generally in a temporal sense = 'while': Mt. 13. 4 ev tw o-ireipuv 
avTov, = the classical o-rreipovTos gu'tov (since Attic writers do not use 
kv tw in this way, as Hebrew writers certainly use 3, Gesen.-Kautzsch 
§ 114, 2), 13. 25, 27. 12, Mc. 4. 4, L. 1. 8, 2. 6, 43, 5. 1 etc. (eyeWo kv 
tw is specially frequent, e.g. 1. 8, 2. 6), A. 2. 1, 9. 3, 19. 1 (eyev. kv 
™), R. 3. 4 O.T., 15. 13 (om. DEFG, the clause is probably due to 
dittography of «is to 7repcrcrei'eiv), G. 4. 18. This phrase generally 
takes the present infinitive, in Luke however it also takes the aorist 
inf., in which case the rendering of it is usually altered from ' while ' 
to ' after that ' (so that it stands for the aorist participle or ore. with 
the aorist) : L. 2. 27 evTW eio-ayayetv = etcraya-ydi'Twv or oVe eto-Tjyayov, 
(3. 21 ev tw ßaTVTLO~drjvat [ = otc eßaTTTicrßi]] a7ravTa tov Aabv koll 'Iijo-ov 
ßaTTTia-ßevTos, the two things are represented as simultaneous events), 
8. 40 (vTroo-Tpkfaiv nB), 9. 34 (simultaneous events), 36, 11. 37, 14. 1, 
19. 15, 24. 30, A. 11. 15. 1 Also H. 2. 8 ev t£ iVoTa£ai, where again 
simultaneousness is expressed, 'in that' or 'by the fact that,' 
= {>7roTa£as ; a similar meaning is expressed in 8. 13 by ev tw Xeyetv 
' in that he says,' ' by saying ' ; further instances of a meaning that 
is not purely temporal are Mc. 6. 48 ßao-avi£opkvov<; kv tw eAavvetv, 
in rowing: L. 1. 21 kOavpafav kv tw, when and that he tarried: 
A. 3. 26 ev tw äiroo-TpefaLv, in that he turned = by turning; so 4. 30 
(Herrn. Vis. i. 1. 8). — The articular infinitive is never found with kvi 
or 7rpos. 


1. The classical language has but few exceptions to the rule that 
the subject of the infinitive, if identical with the subject of the main 
verb, is not expressed, but is supplied from the main verb in the 
nominative (§ 70, 1) ; the exceptions are occasioned by the necessity 
for laying greater emphasis on the subject, or by assimilation to an 
additional contrasted subject, which must necessarily be expressed 

1 Accordingly one might expect in L. 10. 35 eV ry iiravipxeadai /j.e äiroSücru 
rather to have e-rraveXdetv, cp. 19. 15 ; but the meaning is not 'after my return' 
but ' on my way back. ' 


by the accusative. On the other hand, the interposition of a preposi- 
tion governing the infinitive produces no alteration of the rule, nor 
again the insertion of 8elv, XPV vaL (°f Wfl i c h insertion there are no 
instances in the N.T. if we except A. 26. 9 in Paul's speech before 
Agrippa). The same rule applies to the N.T.; the subject of the 
infinitive which has already been given in or together with the main 
verb, in the majority of cases is not repeated with the infinitive : and 
if the infinitive is accompanied by a nominal predicate or an apposi- 
tional phrase agreeing with its subject, the latter is nowhere and the 
former is not always a reason for altering the construction, in other 
words the appositional phrase must and the predicate may, as in 
classical Greek, be expressed in the nominative. 2 C. 10. 2 Seo/xai to 
pr) irapuv (apposition) öapprjaai, R. 9. 3 rjvxop-rfv dvdOcfia (predic.) eu'at 
auTos e'yw, (Jo. 7. 4 where according to BD the ace. avrb should be 
read for auTos), R. 1. 22 <£acn<ovTes efvai (Tocpol, H. 11. 4 ijiaprvpi'jdi] eivai 
StKaios (in Ph. 4. 1 1 ep,a9ov avTapKTjs eiVai the noin. is necessary, since 
the ace. and inf. is out of place with fiavdavav which in meaning is 
related to the verb 'to be able'). Instances of omission of subject, 
where there is no apposition or predicate : L. 24. 23 Xkyovo-ai 
l(o/)aK€vou, Ja. 2. 14, 1 Jo. 2. 6, 9, Tit. 1. 16 (with Aeyeu' and 
6po\oydv ; it is superfluous to quote instances with öeAetv, ^reiv 

2. There are however not a few instances where, particularly if a 
nominal predicate is introduced, the infinitive (in a way that is 
familiar in Latin writers) 1 keeps the reflexive pronoun in the accusa- 
tive as its subject, and then the predicate is made to agree- with 
this. A. 5. 36 0€uSas Aeycov elva'i Tiva kavTov, 8. 9, L. 23. 3, Ap. 2. 9 
and 3. 9 tw AeyovTtov 'IovScuovs eivai eavrovs (in 2. 2 most MSS. omit 
eivai), L. 20. 20 vivoKpivop,£vov<$ eavrobs Sikcuous eiVai (eivai om. D), 
R 2. 19 7T€7roiöas creavrbv 6Srjy6v eivai, 6. 1 1 Aoyt£ecr#e eavrovs eii'cu 
vexpoi's. According to the usage of the classical language there would 
in all these cases be no sufficient reason for the insertion of the 
reflexive ; after Aeyovrwv in Ap. 2. 9 'IovSaiW would have had to be 
used, but this assimilation is certainly not in the manner of the 
N.T., vide infra 6; in 1 C. 7. 11 orvvevTijcraTe ('you have proved') 
eavrous äyvovs eivai, classical Greek would have said xyzas avrors övTas, 
see § 70, 3. The only instances of the reflexive being used where 
there is no nominal predicate are: Ph. 3. 13 e'yw efiavrov oiVw 
\oyi£ KaTei\y](f)evai, H. 10. 34 ytvwcrKovTes e'xetv eavrovs Kpeicrcrova 
VTrapgiv (cp. § 70, 2), Clem. Cor. i. 39. 1 !atn-o!>s ßov\.6p.evoi eTraipeo-Qai, 
= class, avrol, Hcrm. Sim. vi. 3. 5, A. 25. 2I rov Ilai'Aov cTriKakea-a- 
jxevov rrjpelcröai avrov (cp. § 69, 4) : this last is the only instance 
(besides the reading of CD in L. 20. 7 firj ct'Sevai avrov?) where the 
pronoun is not reflexive (cp. E. 4. 22 u/tas, but the whole construction 
of that sentence is far from clear). In A. 25. 4 the reflexive is kept 
where there is a contrasted clause as often in classical Greek : t»?- 

1 Also found in inscriptional translations from Latin, Viereck Sermo Graeeus 
senatus Rom. p. 68, 12. 

§ 72. 2-5.] WITH THE INFINITIVE. 239 

peicrOac tov II., eavrbv Se fteXXuv k.t.A. (in classical Greek avrbs might 
also be used). 

3. More remarkable are the instances where an infinitive depend- 
ent on a preposition, though its subject is identical with that of the 
main verb, nevertheless has an accusative, and moreover an accusa- 
tive of the simple personal pronoun (not reflexive), attached to it 
as its subject. This insertion of the pronoun is a very favourite 
construction, if the clause with the inf. and prep, holds an independ- 
ent position within the sentence. Thus it is found after perd to in 

Mt. 26. 32 =Mc. 14. 28 perd to eyepoyvai fie 7rpoa£w, A. 1. 3 Trape<TTi]<T€v 
eavrbv fövra p.erd to rradeiv avTov (19. 21 perd to yeveaOac, but D adds 
fte, Herrn. Vis. ii. 1. 3, Mand. iv. 1. 7, Sim. viii. 2. 5, 6. 1). After 
8td to: L. 2. 4 dveßi] ... Sta to etVat avrbv, 19. II, Jo. 2. 24 81a to 
avrbv ytvwcr/ceiv, Ja. 4. 2 otjk fX eTe ^ ta T0 f") a ^clo-$ai vpds, H. 7. 24. 
"Ews toi> eX0elv avrbv A. 8. 40. lipo rov L. 22. 15. 'Ev tw Karrjyo- 
peicrdat avrbv ovSev direnpivaro Mt. 27. 12, cp. L. 9. 34, 10. 35, A. 4. 30, 

R. 3. 4 O.T., Clem. Cor. i. 10. 1. With the simple dative of the inf. 
2 C. 2. 13. This accus, is not found in the N.T. in expressions 
denoting aim by means of els to and trpbs to (though it occurs with 
els in Clem. Cor. i. 34. 7) ; nor is it found in all cases with perd etc. 
That the reflexive pronoun is not used is natural in view of the 
independent character of the clause with the infinitive and preposition. 
(The ace. is found after ware in Clem. Cor. i. 11. 2, 46. 7, Herrn. 
Sim. ix. 6. 3, 12. 2; after rov in Clem. Cor. i. 25. 2 ; after irpiv in 
Herrn. Sim. ix. 16. 3.) 

4. A certain scarcity of the use of the nominative with the infini- 
tive is seen in the fact that the personal construction with the 
passive voice such as Xeyopau etvat is by no means common in the 
N.T. writers (for H. 11. 4 epaprvpijd-q thai vide sup. 1; cp. Xpicrros 
K7]pvo-o-eTai 6'ti 1 C. 15. 12, 6 pydels Mt. 3. 3, i)kovo-6i] oti used person- 
ally Mc. 2. I?, <pavepovcr6ai oti 2 C 3. 3, 1 Jo. 2. 19, (pavepol eaovrai 

on Herrn. Sim. iv. 4). The personal construction is used more fre- 
quently with the inf. denoting something which ought to take place 
(öeOoKipdapeda Tria-revßrjvai 1 Th. 2. 4; \pi] par i(ea 6 'at §69, 4; the latter 
verb is also found with the nom. and inf. of assertion in L. 2. 26 
according to the reading of D), and with adjectives (§ 69, 5) such as 
Si'votos, iKavo's (but dpKeros in 1 P. 4. 3 does not affect the inf. which 
has a subject of its own) ; so too Ave have eSo£a ipavro} 8elv 7r/xt£at 
A. 26. 9, as well as eSo£e poi L. 1. 3 etc. 

5. The accusative and infinitive is also in comparison with its use 
in the classical language greatly restricted, by direct speech or by 
iva and on; similarly instances of t6 (nom. or ace.) with the ace. and 
inf. (as in E. 4. 13) are almost entirely wanting. On the other hand 
this construction has made some acquisitions, cp. supra 2 and 3, 
§ 70, 2 etc.; and a certain tendency to use the fuller construction 
(ace. and infin.) is unmistakable. However, even in cases where 
the accusative may be inserted, it need not always be used : thus we 
have ovtws e^eiv in A. 12. 15, but in 24. 9 Taira ovrws ^x eiV \ ^ ma y 
further be omitted with dvay/07 and Set as in Mt. 23. 23 e'Sei 7rot?}crai 


(i.e. vfj-us), Ii. 13. 5 dvaynr) v-roTao-creo-dai (see § 30, 3; DE etc. read Sib 
v-n-oTda-crecrde) ; or again if the subject of the inf. has already been 
mentioned in another case with the main verb, as in L. 2. 26 rjv 
avT(o Ke\pTjfi.aTi(Tix,kvov //>) iSeli' (i.e. avrbv) davarov, or if it may readily 
be supplied from a phrase in apposition with the subject, as in 
1 P. 2. 1 1 äya.7n)Toi, TrapaxaXu) (i.e. tyxas) ws irapo'iKOvs ... a7re^€cröat, 
cp. ibid. 15, Vitcau, p. 149 f. The following, therefore, are the cases 
where the ace. and inf. is allowable : — with verbs of perceiving, 
recognizing, believing, asserting, showing, § 70, 1-3, where the object 
of this verb and the subject of the inf. is generally not identical with 
the subject of the principal verb : with verbs of making and allowing, 
also with some verbs of commanding and bidding such as aeXeveiv, 
where the two things are never identical : with verbs of willing, 
where they usually are identical (and the simple inf. is therefore the 
usual construction), of desiring etc.: again with impersonal expressions 
like Set, eVSexeTai, di'dyxi], Swerrov, dpecrrov (ecrrt), dpa (ecrrtv) etc., 
also iykvero, a-vveßr] ; with a certain number of these last expressions 
the subject of the infinitive is already expressed in the dative outside 
the range of the infinitive clause, while in the case of others there is 
a tendency to leave it unexpressed, either because it may readily be 
supplied as has been stated above, or in general statements because 
of its indefiniteness. To these instances must be added the inf. with 
a preposition and the article, and the inf. with irpiv, to, tov, wcttc, if 
the subject is here expressed and not left to be supplied. Some 
details may be noticed. With verbs of perceiving, knowing etc. 
(also making) frequently, as in classical Greek, the accusative is 
present, while the infinitive is replaced by 6Vt (or tW respectively) 
with a finite verb: A. 16. 3 rjSeicrav Toy irarkpa avrov ore "EAA>/v 
VTrfjpxcv, 3. 10, 4. 13, Mc. 11. 32, G. 5. 21, Ap. 3. 9 Tronjcru) avrovs 
tVa tfgovcriv ; cp. supra 4 for the nom. with a personal construction 
with 6'rt, and 1 C. 9. 15, § 69, 5 ; the accus, may also be followed by 
an indirect question, as in Jo. 7. 27 etc. 1 We may further note the 
ordinary passive construction with verbs of commanding, see § 69, 8 ; 
the verb Aeycu/ belongs to this category, which when used to express 
a command, though it may take the dative of the person addressed 
with a simple infinitive (corresponding to an imperative of direct 
speech) as in Mt. 5. 34, 39, L. 12. 13, yet is also found with the ace. 
and inf.: A. 21. 21 Aeywv (om. D) firj irepiTkpwtiv avTOVs to, re/cva, 

22. 24 (pass.), L. 19. 15 (do.), where the ambiguity as to whether 
command or assertion is intended must be cleared up by the context. 
The dative with the inf. is also found after Siardcra-eiv {-(.crdai) A. 24. 

23, eViTounreu' (Mc. 6. 39 etc.; also racro-eiv A. 22. 10), —«payyeAAeiJ', 
evTeAAeo-öat, also €7rtTpe7r€U', after impersonal and adjectival or sub- 
stantival expressions like o-vp.<pepei, eöos icrri. dOeparov, ala-\poi', KaAoV 
eV-ri etc. (cp. Dative § 37, 3) ; to which may be added o-vvecpon'ydt] 
v/uv TTupdo-ai A. 5. 9, § 37, 6, p. 114 note 1. But the ace. and inf. is 

1 Even by fxi)irws after <poßei<r0a,L, a verb which can certainly not take ace. and 
inf.: G. 4. II <poßov/xai v/iäs (for you), /j.rjTrus elicjj KocoiriaKa eh v/xas, with which 
Soph. O.T. 760 is compared (Win. § 66, 5). 

§72.5-6.1 WITH THE INFINITIVE. 24 1 

not excluded from being used with these "words, being found not 
only with a passive construction as in A. 10. 48 irpoo-era^ev avroirs 
ßairTLcrÖrjvai, Mc. 6. 27 e7reVa£ev kv€\6rjvai (^BC have IveyKcu which 
is less in accordance with N.T. idiom) r^v KefaX-jv, but also with an 
active (eYa£av dvaßaiveiv IlavA-ov A. 15. 2), and even where the 
person addressed is identical with the subject of the inf., 1 Tim. 6. 
13 f. TrapayyeXXt» ... Ty]pijcrai ere. Also with crvpcpepei. and —pe— ei there 
is nothing to prevent the inf. from having a subject of its own, as 
distinct from the person interested: Jo. 18. 14 o-vp^epet em dvdpwirov 
d-odavelv, 1 C. 11. 13 ; it is more remarkable that with ko.\6v eo-ri 
'it is good' the interested person may be expressed by the accusative 
with an inf.: Mt. 17. 4 = Mc. 9. 5, L. 9. 33 KaX6v icrriv i)pds wSe etrai, 
where however the accusative may be justified, the phrase being 
equivalent to 'I am pleased that we are here': Mc. 9. 45 ko.X6v «mV 
ere ela-eXdelv eis tt)v (idijv x^Aov (cp. 43, 47, where the MSS. are more 
divided between 0-01 and o-e; 0-01 is used in Mt. 18. 8 f.). So too we 
have K. 13. 1 1 wpa ->)päs iyepdrjvat., where y)plv would be equally good : 
L. 6. 4 ovs ovk e^eo-Tiv cpayelv et prj povovs tovs lepels (D has the dat. 
as in Mt. 12. 4; in Mc. 2. 26 nBL have the ace, ACD etc. the 
dat.) : L. 20. 22 e£«rriv 17/ws ... Sovvai **BL (rjplv ACD al.). 'Eyei'eTO 
frequently takes ace. and inf. ; with the dat. it means ' it befell him 
that he' etc. A. 20. 16, G. 6. 14; but the ace. and inf. may also be 
used after a dative, A. 22. 6 lyeverd poi ... irepLao-rpdifai <p£*$, even 
where the accusative refers to the same person as the dative, 22. 1 7 
eyeveTo pot . . . yevicrdai pe (a very clumsy sentence). On the indicative 
after kykvero see § 79, 4. The person addressed is expressed by the 
genitive after Seopai 'request'; if the subject of the inf. is the 
petitioner, 1 then we have the nom. and inf., L. 8. 38, 2 C. 10. 2 : if 
the person petitioned, the simple inf. is likewise used, L. 9. 38, 
A. 26. 3. The verbs of cognate meaning with the last take the 
accus, of the person addressed, namely epwrw, -n-apaKaXw, alrovpai, 
also a£iw, — apaivw ; here therefore we have a case of ace. and inf., 
but the infinitive has a greater independence than it has in the strict 
cases of ace. and inf., and may accordingly in spite of the accusative 
which has preceded take a further accusative as its subject (especially 
where a passive construction is used) : A. 13. 28 ?;T?)crai'To IliXarov 

dvaipedrjvai avrov, 1 Th. 5. 27 opKi£a> r/xas dvayv(wdi}vcu Tf\V kiYKTToXip' 

(here the choice of the passive is not without a reason, whereas in 
Acts loc. cit. D has tovtov plv crTavpOxrai). (A. 21. 12 TrapeKaXovptv ... 
tov prj dvaßaiveiv avrov.) 

6. Since the subject of the inf. generally stands or is thought of 
as standing in the accusative, it is natural that appositional clauses 
and predicates of this subject also take the accusative case, not only 
where the subject itself has or would have this case if it were 
expressed, but also where it has already been used with the principal 
verb in the genitive or dative. The classical language has the 

1 This strikes one as an unusual construction, but it is found elsewhere, 
ripdrra. \aßdv A. 3. 3, rp~r\ao.TO evpelv 7. 46 (28. 20 ?) ; a classical instance is alruv 
\aßelv Aristoph. Plut. 240. 


242 PARTICIPLE (/.). [§ 72. 6. § 73. 1-2. 

choice of saying o-vpßovXevio o~oi irpodvp.ip €tvai or irp<>dvp.ov eivai. ; in 
the case of a genitive oiopai crov irpodvpov dvai is given the preference 
(an adj.), but TTpoo-rdr^v ytvecröat, (a subst.; Kühner, Gr. ii. 2 510 f.); 
appositional clauses formed by means of a participle are freely 
expressed by the dat. (or ace), but not by the gen., the accusative 
being used instead. In the N.T. there is no instance of a predicate 
being expressed by gen. or dat.; appositional clauses are also for the 
most part placed in the accusative, as in L. 1. 73 f. tov oovvai ... 
pvcrdkvTas Xarpeveiv, H. 2. 10, A. 15. 22, 25 (in 25 ABL have 
eKXe^apeuois) etc.; the dat. is only found in the following passages, 
2 P. 2. 2 I Kpeicrcrov ty avrots p.rj «reyi'WKevai . . . ?/ «Viyi'oucriv kiTLcrrpkipaL 
(where however the participle belongs rather to Kpdo-o-ov rjv avrols 
than to the inf., as it decidedly does in A. 16. 21, where 'Pw/xatots 
oviTiv goes with e£eo-Tiv r/p-tv; SO in L. 1. 3), L. 9. 59 kirLTptxpov p.01 
TrpwTov onre\86vTi (but D has -ra, AKII uTreXdeiv kcu) 6d\J/cu tov irarkpa, 
p>ov, A. 27. 3 eTrerpeipev (sc. tw uauAw) 77730? tovs <£i'Aous Tropevöevrt. 
(tfAB ; -ra HLP) eVi/AeAetas tvy/i v. 


1. The participles — which are declinable nouns belonging to the 
verb, used to express not action or being acted upon, like the infini- 
tive, but the actor or the person acted on — have not as yet in the 
N.T. forfeited much of that profusion with which they appear in 
the classical language, since their only loss is that the future parti- 
ciples are less widely used (§61, 4) ; the further development of the 
language into modern popular Greek certainly very largely reduced 
the number of these verbal forms, and left none of them remaining 
except the (pres. and perf.) participles passive and an indeclinable 
gerund in place of the pres. part. act. The usages of the participle 
in the N.T. are also on the whole the same as in the classical 
language, though with certain limitations, especially with regard to 
the frequency with which some of them are employed. 

2. Participle as attribute (or in apposition) with or without an 
article, equivalent to a relative sentence. Mt. 25. 34 rr)v r,£inp' 
vplv ßao-iXeiav, = t. ß. rj vp.iv : Mc. 3. 2 2 01 ypappareis ol 
airb lepo(ToX.vp,(av KaraßdvTe? : L. 6. 48 0/1010? «ttiv dvOpioTTM oikoSo- 
P-ovvtl oi/aav, cp. Mt. 7. 24 dvtipl ocrris iOKoSoprjaev avrov tttjv olkiclv : 
Mc. 5. 25 yvvq ovcra Iv pvo-a cu/*aTos k.t. A. (the participles continue for 
a long way; cp. L. 8. 43, where the first part, is succeeded by a relative 
sentence. Frequently we have 6 Aeyo/xevo?, Ka.Xovp.tvos (in Lc. also 
«ViKaA., of surnames, A. 10. 18, cp. 3s iiriKaXeirat 5. 32) followed by a 
proper name, the art. with the participle being placed after the generic 
word or the original name: opovs tov KaXovpevov eAcuwv A. 1. 12, 
'I^croGs 6 Aeyo/ievos X/dicttos Mt. 1. 16 1 (we never find such expressions 

1 Jo. 5. 2 (<rriv . . . tirl t-j irpoßaTiKrj KokvußrjOpa. 77 iirCKeyoßiv-r) . . . ByBfaOd (D reads 
\ey. without 7/, N* tö \cy6pevov) ; in this passage the article must have been 

§ 73- 2-3.] PARTICIPLE (/.). 243 

as in Thuc. ii. 29. 3 rr\s «frwKi'Sos vw Kakovp.evi]s yrys, or in iv. 8. 6 1} 
vtjctos 17 ^<f)o.KTr)pia KaXov/xivrj). A point to be noticed is the separa- 
tion of the participle from the word or words which further define 
its meaning: R. 8. 18 rrjv p.e\Xovcrav S6£av aTTOKakv^Orivat, G. 3. 23, 
1 C. 12. 2 2 Toi SoKovvra p.eXi] . . . vrrapxeiv, 2 P. 3. 2, A. 13. 1 ev 
'Avrio\eia Kara rrjv ovcrav eKKXrpriav, 14. 13 rod övros Aios 7rpo 7roAews 
according to the reading of D (see Ramsay, Church in Roman 
Empire, p. 51 f.), 28 17, Participles as a rule do not show a 
tendency to dispense with the article, even where the preceding 
substantive has none ; in that case (cp. § 47, 6) the added clause 
containing the article often gives a supplementary definition or a 
reference to some well-known fact : 1 P. 1. 7 \pvo-iov rov aTroXkvfievov, 
L. 7. 32 7rai8iois Tois ev dyopa Ka8i]p.ei>ois, Jo. 12. 12 o^Ao? 7roAvs o 
e\0u)V eis Tryv eoorryv, A. 4. 1 2 ov8e yap ovofxd eo-riv erepov to 8e8op.evov. 
In these last two and in similar passages (Mc. 14. 41, A. 11. 21, 
where DE al. omit the art., Jd. 4, 2 Jo. 7) the presence of the article 
is remarkable, not because it would be better omitted — for that must 
have obscured the attributive character of the clause — but because 
according to Attic custom this attributive character should rather 
have been expressed by a relative sentence. The same use of the 
art. is found with rives without a substantive : L. 18. 9 nvds rovs 
Treiroidöras ecf>' eavrois, G. 1. 7 ei p,i'] Tives el&iv ol TapdcraovTes v/tas, 
Col. 2. 8 ; the definite article here has no force, and we may compare 
in Isocrates ekri rives ot /xeya cppovovcriv (10. 1), e. r. ot . . . e\ovcri 
(15. 46). 1 These constructions have therefore been caused by the 
fact that a relative sentence and a participle with the article have 
become synonymous. 2 — The participle with article is found, as in 
classical Greek, with a personal pronoun, Ja. 4. 1 2 <rv ris eT 6 Kpivwv 
(os Kpiveis KL), 1 C. 8. 10 ere (om. B al.) rbv k\ovra, R. 9. 20, Jo. 1. 12 
etc.; also where the pronoun must be supplied from the verb, H. 4. 3 
d<jepy6p.e9a ... oi TrLcrreva-avres, 6. 18; it is especially frequent with 
an imperative, Mt. 7. 23, 27. 40 (also oijcu v[±iv, ol e/i7re7rA^cr/xevot 
[ = ot e/A7T€7rA7jcröe] L. 6. 25, though in 24 we have oval vfuv rois 
7rAoucrtois ; A. 13. 16 avSpes 'Io~par)\.irai koli [sc. i'jueis] ot cpoßovpievoi 
rbv 0e6v, 2. 14 ; § 33, 4). 

3. The participle when used without a substantive (or pronoun) 
and in place of one, as a rule takes the article as it does in classical 
Greek: 6 Trapa&iSovs p-e Mt. 26. 46 (cp. 48; 'IowSas 6 Trap, avrov 25), 
o kAottcüv 'he who has stolen hitherto' E. 4. 28 etc. so also when 
used as a predicate (cp. § 47, 3), Jo. 8. 28 eyw el/xi 6 p.aprvpwv, 6. 63 
etc. Where it is used with a general application as in E. 4. 28 loc. 
cit. 7ras may be inserted: 7rcuri rois Karoixovo-iv A. 1. 19; 7ras 6 

omitted according to Attic usage, but may stand according to the usage of the 
N.T. : cp. the further instances given of this in the text. The reading to 
\ey6fiepov (and the insertion of 77) may be due to KoXvfxßrjdpa being taken as a 

1 In Lys. 19. 57 elai rives ol irpoavaKlvKovTes it has not unreasonably been pro- 
posed to read of TrpoavaKlcrKOvo-i. 

2 For an instance where ol is omitted cp. Mc. 14. 4 y\aa.v rives ayavaKrovvres, a 
periphrasis for the imperfect. 

244 PARTICIPLE (/.). [§ 73. 3-4. 

öpyt^o/xei'os Mt. 5. 25, cp. 28, 7. 8 etc., L. 6. 30, 47 etc., A. 10. 43, 

13. 39 (77-U5 6 not elsewhere in Acts), K. 1. 16, 2. 1 etc., though in 
other cases the article cannot be used with 7ras 'everyone,' § 47, 9. 
Cp. Soph. Aj. 152 7ras 6 kAiW, Demosth. 23. 97 7rus 6 de/xevos 
(Krüger, Gr. 50, 4, 1 : 11, 11). The article is omitted in Mt. 13. 19 
TravTos ukouovtos, L. 11. 4 Traurl 6<f>ei\ovTi (LX insert art.; D reads 
quite differently), 2 Th. 2. 4, Ap. 22. 15 ; and in all cases where a 
substantive is introduced as in Mt. 12. 25 (here again participle with 
art. is equivalent to a relative sentence, cp. nas 6'o-tis Mt. 7. 24 with 
the part, in 26). Instances without 7ras where the art. is omitted 
(occasionally found in class. Greek, Kühner ii. 525 f.) : ■»/yot^evo? 
Mt. 2. 6 O.T. (see § 47, 3), <£wn) ßow-ros Mc. 1. 3 O.T., e X £is «eei 
Kparovvras Ap. 2. 14, ovk ccttiv crvviwv k.t.X. R. 3. 11 f. O.T. (accord- 
ing to (A)BG, other mss. insert art., in lxx. Ps. 13. if. most mss. 
omit it), ' one who ' or ' persons who,' though with oik etrriv, e'xw and 
similar words the article is not ordinarily omitted in Attic. — 
Neuter participle, sing, and plur.: Mt. 1. 20 to Zv airy ytw^Okv, 
2. 15 and passim to pydev, L. 2. 27 to eldio-Lievov (eöos D) to? v6fxox> 
(cp. § 47, 1), 3. 13 to SuiTeTay/ievov, 4. 16 Kara to etwöos avTw, 
8. 56 to yeyovos, 9. 7 Ta yevofieva, Jo. 16. 13 ra ip^6p.€va, 1 C 1. 28 
to. Z^ovOev^pieva, ra fxrj ovTa, ra ovTa, 10. 27 irciv to 7rapaTiöe/A€i>ov, 

14. 7, 9 to avXovp.€vov etc., 2 C. 3. 10 f. to 8e8o£ao-[i,£VOV, to Karapyov- 
p,evov etc., H. 12. 10 Kara to Sokovv avTois, €7rt to (rvp.cpepov, 12. 11 
7rpbs to 7rapoi/ etc. On the whole, as compared with the classical 
language, the use of the neuter is not a very frequent one : like the 
masculine participle it sometimes has reference to some individual 
thing, sometimes it generalizes ; to o~vp.<pkpov has also (as in Attic) 
become a regular substantive, if it is the correct reading, and not 
o-vjJL<l>opo\', in 1 C. 7. 35, 10. 33 to vfxQtv avTMV (e/xavTov) <rvp.cfiepoi> 
(k c al.). — In one or two passages we also find the rare future parti- 
ciple used with the article without a substantive : L. 22. 49 t< v > 
(o-6li€vov (to yev6/x. D ; other mss. omit these words altogether from 
the text), etc., see § 61, 1. 

4. The participle stands as part of the predicate in the first place 
in the periphrastic forms of the verb, § 62 : viz. in the perfect (and 
fut. perf.) as in classical Greek, also according to Aramaic manner in 
the imperfect and future, the boundary-line between this use of the 
participle and its use as a clause in apposition being not very clearly 
drawn, ibid. 2. The finite verb used with it is etvcu or yivzo-Sai 
(ibid. 3). This predicative participle is fürther used as the comple- 
ment of a series of verbs which express a qualified form of the verb 
'to be* (to be continually, to be secretly etc.), and which by them- 
selves give a quite incomplete sense; still this use of the part, as the 
complement of another verb has very much gone out in the N.T. and 
is mainly found only in Luke and Paul (Hebrews). 'Yirdpx«v (strictly 
'to be beforehand,' 'to be already' so and so, though in the N.T. 
and elsewhere in the later language its meaning is weakened to that 
of ilvai ; nowhere in the N.T. has it the sense of 'to take the lead in 
an action') takes a participle in A. 8. 16, 19. 36, Ja. 2. 15 yvpvol 
VTrap^uxTLV Kai kenroLLeuot (uhtlv add. ALP) tt}s ... Tpcxpijs; irpovirapytiv 

§ 73- 4-5.] PARTICIPLE (/.). 245 

(which obviously contains the meaning of 'before'; a classical word) 
takes a part, in L. 23. 12 (D is different) : but the part, is independ- 
ent in A. 8. 9 —povTTTjpxev ev rrj tto Act, fiayevwv k.t.A. (cp. the text of 
D). If the complement of this and of similar verbs is formed by an 
adjective or a preposition with a noun, then wv should be inserted ; 
but this participle is usually omitted with this verb and the other 
verbs belonging to this class, cp. infra; Phrynichus 277 notes <pi'Aos 
crot rvyxavu) -without wv as a Hellenistic construction (though instances 
of it are not wanting in Attic). — This verb Tvy\dv(o 'to be by 
accident' never takes a part, in N.T.; SiaTeXttv 'to continue' takes 
an adj. without wv in A. 27. 33, for which we have bnplvav (cp. 
oiapevw Aeytov Demosth. 8. 71 1 ) in 'Jo.' 8. 7 (ire/xevov epwrwvT«?, 
A. 12. 16, Clem. Cor. ii. 10. 5, and as in Attic ov SieAi7rev Kara^iXovcra 
L. 7. 45, cp. A. 20. 27 D, Herrn. Vis. i. 3. 2, iv. 3. 6, Mand. ix. 8. 
Apx€o-6ai in Attic takes a participle, if the initial state of anything 
is contrasted with its continuation or end, elsewhere the inf., which is 
used in all cases in the N.T.; however there is no passage where the 
part, would have had to be used according to the Attic rule. UaiurQai 
takes a part, in L. 5. 4, A. 5. 42, 6. 13 etc., E. 1. 16, Col. 1. 9, 
H. 10. 2 (where it has a part. pass, ovk dv eTravcravro 7rpoo-<pepopevai); 
for which we have the unclassical reXelv in Mt. 11. 1 e-e'Aeo-ev Sia-racr- 
o-cüv (cp. D in Luke 7. 1). — Aavodvav only takes a part, in H. 13. 2 
eXaOov (sc. eavrovs) ^evtcravres (literary language) ; 4>aiveo-0ai. in Mt. 6. 
18 ottws firj <j)avys rois dvopwTrois J'?;crT€iW, where however v^oreiW 
is an addition to the subject as in verse 17 trv 8e vqo-r. aXeixfai, and 
4>avfis r. dvdp. is an independent clause as in verse 5 (we nowhere 
have (paivo/xai or <£avepos ei/u, SrjXos eliii with a part, in the Attic 
manner =' it is evident that'; on 4>avepovo~6ai on see § 70, 3). — "With 
verbs meaning 'to cease' or 'not to desist' may be reckoned 1-yKa.Ketv 
which takes a part, in G. 6. 9, 2 Th. 3. 13 ; the Attic words napweiv, 
o-ayopev€iv ' to fail,' are^ecröat, Kaprepeiv, vrropeveiv do not appear 
with a participle. — npoe'<}>9ao-ev aiVov Aeywv Mt. 17. 25 agrees with 
classical usage (the simple verb has almost lost the meaning of 
'before') ; it takes the inf. in Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 2, see § 69, 4. — Other 
expressions denoting action qualified in some way or other take a 
part. : KaAws — otetv as in Attic, K-aAws Ivoi-qo-as 7rapayevo/xevos A. 10. 
3$, cp. Ph. 4. 14, 2 P. 1. 19, 3 Jo. 6 ; for which we find incorrectly 
€v Trpacrcreiv in A. 15. 29 1 To this category belongs also rl ttoiütz 
Xvovres Mc. 11. 5, cp. A. 21. 13; and again •tjp.apTov Mt. 
27. 4. — Ot'xKr&u and the like are never found with a participle. 

5. A further category of verbs which take a participle as their 
complement consists of those which denote emotion, such as x at V etv > 
upyi^ecrOai, a/io-yyveo- 6 at and the like; this usage, however, has almost 
disappeared in the N.T. A. 16. 34 yyaAAiai-o 7r€mo-Tei'KCüs is an 
undoubted instance of it ; but Jo. 20. 20 exdp-qo-av ISovres undoubtedly 
means ' ichen they saw Him ' (the participle being an additional 
independent statement), as in Ph. 2. 28 Iva t'SdvTes airrbv x a PV Te > ^^. 

1 "Efifieveiv with a part, occurs in an inscriptional letter of Augustus, Viereck 
Sermo Graecus senatus Rom. p. 76. 

246 PARTICIPLE (/.). [§ 73- 5. 

2. io. Another instance is 2 P. 2. 20 6o£as ov rpep-ovo-iv ßXacr- 
</)»;/ioui/T€s 'do not shudder at reviling'; but in 1 C. 14. 18 eu^apia-no. . . 
XaX'Zv is a wrong reading (of KL ; correctly AaAio). — The use of the 
participle as a complement has been better preserved in the case of 
verbs of perceiving and apprehending ; in classical Greek the part, 
stands in the nominative, if the perception refers to the subject, e.g. 
6/Dw r}fj.apTi}Ku><;, in the accusative (or genitive) if it refers to the 
object, whereas in the N.T. except with passive verbs the nominative 
is no longer found referring to the subject (Sri is used instead in 
Mc. 5. 29, 1 Jo. 3. 14). With verbs meaning to see (ßXk-n-u, deupu, 
[opw], el8ov, iOeacrdp-qv, eopaxa, TeOeapai, oi/'o/zcu) we have Mt. 24. 30 
6\povTcu Toy vlbv rod dvdp. ep\6pevov, cp. 15. 31, Mc. 5. 31, Jo. 1. 32, 
38 etc.; with öVra A. 8. 23, 17. 16; with an ellipse of this participle 
(cp. supra 4 ; also found in classical Greek, Krüger, Gr. § 56, 7, 4) 
Jo. 1. 51 cTSov ere viroKario t!/? ctuktJs, Mt. 25. 38 f. et8opkv ere £evov, 
dcrOevyj (do-devovvra BD), cp. 45, A. 17. 2 2 ü»s SeicriSeu/xoveo-Tepoi'S vpds 
OaopQ. 1 (These verbs also take on, § 70, 2.) Occasionally with the 
verb ' to see ' as with other verbs of this kind the participle is rather 
more distinct from the object and presents an additional clause, 
while object and verb together give a fairly complete idea : Mt. 22. 
II efSev (K€L dvdpioTrov oIk eVSe8i>//,evoi> k.t. A., = os ovk eVeSeSirro, Mc. 11. 
13 iSYov (TVKrjv euro paxpoOev e^ovcrav cf>v\\a, 'which had leaves.' — 
'Akovi€iv with a part, is no longer frequent ; alternative constructions, 
if the substance of the thing heard is stated, are the ace. and inf. and 
especially im, § 70, 2; it takes the ace. and part, in L. 4. 23 oo-a 
rjKova-apev yevopeva, A. 7. 12, 3 Jo. 4, 2 Th. 3. n, 2 and incorrectly 
instead of the gen. in A. 9. 4, 26. 14, vide infra. The construction 
with a gen. and part, is also not frequent apart from the Acts : 
Mc. 12. 28 aKoi'cras olvtQv crv^r/TovvTiav, 14. 58, L. 18. 36 o^Aoi- 
8iaTropevop,evov, Jo. 1. 37, A. 2. 6, 6. 11 etc.; in 22. 7 and 11. 7 
■iJKovcra (fHDvrjs Aeyovo-i/s p.01, for which in 9. 4, 26. 14 we have 4 >(ov V 1 ' 
Xeyovcrau (in 26. 14 E has the gen.), although (puvij refers to the 
speaker and not to the thing spoken. Cp. § 36, 5. — rmoo-Kciv has 
this construction in L. 8. 46 eyvtov 8vvap.1v i^eXrjXvdviav a7r' ipov, 
A. 19. 35, H. 13. 23 ; but iiriyiv. Mc. 5. 30 (cp. L. loc. cit.) takes an 
object with an attributive participle, «rtyvovs rqv <=£ avrov 8vv. 
e^eXdovcrav. — ElSe'vai is SO used only in 2 C. 12. 2 oT8a... dpiraykvTa 
tov TOLovTov (it takes an adj. without ovtci in Mc. 6. 20 ci'Sws avrbv 
dvopa 8iKaiov, where D inserts elvai); elsewhere it has the inf. and most 
frequently on, § 70, 2. — 'Eirio-rao-öai in A. 24. 10 ovra ere Kpirijv 
eVio-ra/zei/os, cp. 26. 3 where n*BEH omit eVio-r. — Evpunceiv commonly 
takes this construction (also classical, Thuc. ii. 6. 3), Mt. 12. 44 
eii/owTKci (sc. tov oiKov, which D inserts) cr^oAa^ovTa, 24. 46 ov ... evprqcrei 

1 No further instances occur of this use of ws with verbs of seeing : but cp. 
infra ws ix^P^> v vy^vQ* 2 Th. 3. 15 ' as if he were an enemy ' (see also § 34, 5) ; 
the meaning therefore must be, ' so far as I see it appears as if you were ' etc. 
(J« softens the reproof). 

2 The classical distinction between the inf. and the part, with this verb (the 
part, denoting rather the actual fact, and the inf. the hearsay report, Kühner 
ii. 2 629) seems not to exist in the N.T. 

§ 73- 5- § 74- 1-2.] PARTICIPLE (/.) AND (II). 2 tf 

TToiovvTa outws, etc. (occasionally as with the verb ' to see,' the part, 
is more distinct from the object, A. 9. 2 rivas evpy tt)s 68ov ovtcis 
' who were '); the pass. €vpiaK€cr6ai is used with the nom. of the part. 
(= Attic (f>ai.V€crßai, Viteau), evpkdrj kv yacrrpl e^ovcra Mt. 1. 18. — 
AoKifid|eiv in 2 C. 8. 2 2 ov Z8oKLp.dcrap.ev ('have proved') cnrov8alov ovto. 
(used in another way it takes the inf., § 69, 4). — Instances of this 
construction are wanting with o-vvikvai, aio-ddveo-dai, p.ep.vrjo-6aL and 
others ; p.avOdveLv (class, pavddvoy 8iaßeßXyp.kvos ' that I am slan- 
dered ') only appears to take it in 1 Tim. 5. 13 dpa 8e kcu dpyal 
p.av6dvovcrcv Trepiep\6p.€vai, where Trepiepx. is in any case an additional 
statement, while dpyai is the predicate, with the omission (through 
corruption of the text) of eivai (p.av6. takes the inf. ibid. 4, Ph. 4. 11, 
Tit. 3. 14). — Verbs of opining strictly take an inf. or a double 
accusative (§ 34, 5) ; but in the latter case the ace. of the predicate 
may be a participle, e\ e p.e irapyry/Jikvov L. 14. 18, dXXyXovs i)yovp,evot 
vTrepkyovTa>i Ph. 2. 3. The participle with <Ls may also in classical 
Greek be used with verbs of this class (Hdt. ii. 1 <I>s SovXovs 
TraTpdjtovs «ovras eVo/u£e), as it is in 2 C 10. 2 tovs Xoyttppkvovs rjpds 
ws Kara crdpxa TrepiiraTovvras, but we may equally well have evpedeU 
(us dröpümos Ph. 2. 8, o)s Z\dpov r/ydcrde 2 Th. 3. 15, so that one sees 
that in the first passage the participle possesses no peculiar function 
of its own. Cp. § 74, 6. — 'OnoXo-yeiv takes a double accusative in 
Jo. 9. 22 (D inserts eTvai) and R. 10. 9 edv o/xoAoy^o-^s Kvpiov 'Iyjo-ovv 
1 confessest J. as Lord ' ; accordingly we have also in 1 Jo. 4. 2 'I^cr. 
Xp. kv aapKi kXrjXvdora, unless B is more correct in reading k\yXv9kvai; 
cp. 3 with the reading of « 'I. Kvpiov kv v. kX., and 2 Jo. 7. — Verbs 
of showing are never found with a participle, § 70, 3. 


1. The participle is found still more abundantly used as an addi- 
tional clause in the sentence, either referring to a noun (or pronoun) 
employed in the same sentence and in agreement with it (the con- 
junctive participle), or used independently and then usually placed 
together with the noun, which is its subject, in the genitive (the 
participle absolute). In both cases there is no nearer definition 
inherent in the participle as such, of the relation in which it stands 
to the remaining assertions of the sentence ; but such a definition 
may be given by prefixing a particle and in a definite way by the 
tense of the participle (the future). The same purpose may be ful- 
filled by the writer, if he pleases, in other ways, with greater 
definiteness though at the same time with greater prolixity : namely, 
by a prepositional expression, by a conditional, causal, or temporal 
sentence etc., and lastly by the use of several co-ordinated principal 

2. The conjunctive participle. — -1 Tim. 1. 13 dyvoQ>v «rot^o-a, cp. 
A. 3. 17 Kara dyvoiav kirpd^are, per inscitiam: Mt. 6. 27 (L. 12. 25) 
Tis p.epLp.vwv 81'vaTai TrpocrOeivat. k.t.X., 'by taking thought,' or = eav kcu 

2 4 8 PARTICIPLE {IL). [§ 74. 2. 

(lepifjLva. We may note the occasional omission of the part. <2v : 
L. 4. I 'It/ctoGs 5c irX.i)prjq Trvevp.aTos äyiov iVeo-Tpei/'ev, cp. A. 6. 8 a 
quite similar phrase : H. 7. 2, A. 19. 37 ovre i€/Docri'Aoi's oiVc ßXav- 
jiiyjLovvTas (cp. Kühner ii. 659), where the part, is concessive or 
adversative: as in Mt. 7. 11 et ifiels 7rov>]pol ovres oi8are. k.t.A., 
'although you are evil' (cp. L. 11. 13). To denote this sense more 
clearly classical Greek avails itself of the particle kcUimp, which is rare 
in the N.T.: Ph. 3. 4 Kaiirep e'yw e\u>v 7re7roidy]criv k.t.A., H. 5. 8, 7. 5, 
12. 17: 2 P. 1. 12 (Herrn. Sim. viii 6. 4, 11. 1); it also uses kcu 
TauTci, which in the N.T. appears in H. 11. 12 ; a less classical use is 
KaiToi with a part., likewise only found in H. 4. 3 (before a participle 
absolute), and a still less classical word is xanoiye (in classical Greek 
the ye is detached and affixed to the word emphasized), which how- 
ever is only found with a finite verb, and therefore with a sort of 
paratactical construction; Jo. 4. 2 (kcu'toi C), A. 14. 17 (koutoi 
n c ABC*); in A. 17. 27 Kcu'ye 'indeed' appears to be the better reading 
(«atrotye «, KaiToi AE), here a participle follows. Cp. § 77, 4 and 14. 
— Conditional participle: L. 9. 25 Ti co(/>eAeiTcu avdpwrros KepSrjcras tov 
Kocrp-ov 6'Aov, =Mt. 16. 26 €<xv KepSqcrrj. Causal : Mt. 1. 19 'Iaxri]<p..., 
SiKaios iov kgu p.rj 6eX(DV avrrjv Sicyparia-ai, ißovXrjOr) k.t.A., = on cukcuos 
rjv, or 81a to Sikcuos etva6, or (in class. Greek) are (otov, ota) 8. wv, 
particles which are no longer found in the N.T. Final participle : 
the classical use of the fut. part, in this sense in the N.T. apart from 
Lc. (A. 8. 27 iXyjXv$€i Trpoo-Kvvrjcrwv, 22. 5, 24. 17, also 25. 13 accord- 
ing to the correct reading ao-n-a<r6p.€voi, § 58, 4) occurs only in 
Mt. 27. 49 (epxeTcu crakrwv : but N* has o-wo-ai, D Kai (rwtret). More 
commonly this function is performed by the pres. part., § 58, 4, as in 
L. 7. 6 (.irepxpev <fii\ovs o tKavTovTap^s Xkyuiv airrio, unless (Viteau, 
p. 186) another construction with kindred meaning is introduced, 
such as in Mt. 11. 2 irkp.\pa<i CLTrev, 1 C. 4. 17 eweptpa Tip.66i.ov, 0% 
dvapv-rjo-eL, or the infinitive, which is the commonest construction of 
all, § 69, 2. — Then the most frequent use of this participle is to state 
the manner in which an action takes place, its antecedents and its 
accompaniments, in which case it would sometimes be possible to use 
a temporal sentence in its place, and sometimes not, viz. if the state- 
ment is of too little importance to warrant the latter construction. 
For instance, in Mc. 1. 7 ov ovk elpl iKavos xvxpas Xvo-at rbv Ipdvra, no 
one would have said eVeiSav kvxJ/o); nor again in A. 21. 32 os 7rapa- 
Aa/3wv crTpaTiwTas KaTe8pap,€v €7r' avrov would anyone have used such 
a phrase as iTraSi] irapeXaßev, since the part, in this passage (as Xaßuv 
often does in class. Greek) corresponds to our ' with ' and admits of 
no analysis (see also Jo. 18. 3, which Viteau compares with Mt. 26. 47, 
where we have p-eravTov; Mt 25. 1). Similarly <j>€pci>v = ' with ' in 
Jo. 19. 39; {fx«v, which is also very common in class. Greek, occurs 
in L. 2. 42 in D, besides in Mt. 15. 30 with the addition of pe6' 
latiTwv (aywv occurs nowhere). While therefore these classical 
phrases with the exception of Xaßwv are disappearing, XaßtGv is also 
used in another way together with other descriptive participles, 
which according to Hebrew precedent become purely pleonastic 
(Viteau, p. 191): Mt. 13. 31 kokkw crtva7r€ws, ov Xaßuv avdpwrros 

§ 74- 2-3.] PARTICIPLE (II). 249 

ecnretpev, and again in 33 £vp.rj i)v Xaßovcra yvvi] ev€Kpv\f/tv, 14. 19 
Xaßiov tovs dprovs evX6yr)<r€v, 21. 35, 39 etc.; SO also dvao-Tds (after 
the Hebr. Om) L. 15. 18 dvaa-ras iropevcropM.1, ibid. 20, A. 5. 17, 8. 27 

etc.; Mt. 13. 46 <xire\0»v TT(7rpaK€V (cp. 25. 18, 25), iropeuöAs 25. 16 

(both verbs representing the Hebr. "P"), cp. infra 3. — The classical 
use of apxop.evo's 'at the beginning,' TeAeirrwv 'in conclusion,' is 
not found ; but we find as in class. Greek öp£d|i.€voi d^o 'lepovo-aXrjp 
L. 24. 47, a. a™ twv 7rpe<rßvTepo>v ' Jo.' 8. 9 ' beginning with,' with 
which in the passage of 'Jo.' we have in the ordinary text (D 
is different) the unclassical addition of ews twv la-ydrmv, as also 

in A. 1. 2 2 dp£a/xei/os a7r5 tov ßairTLö-p.aTO'i 'Iwdvov ayju («cos BD) 

k.t.X. (L. 23. 5, Mt. 20. 8). 'Ap£dp.evos is used pleonastically in 
A. 11. 4 dp£dp.evos Uerpos i^rißero auTois Kade£rjs, with a certain 
reference to Kadegrjs and occasioned by that word ; cp. on rfp^aro 
with inf. § 69, 4 note 1, on p. 227. — "With irpoaßels dirtv 'said further 
L. 19. 11, cp. Trpo<TTi6eo-6ai with the inf. (a Hebraism) § 69, 4. 

3. Conjunctive participle and co-ordination. — The pleonastic use of 
Xaßdv etc. (supra 2) does not necessarily require the participle, and 
the finite verb (with kcu) may also be employed in this way — a con- 
struction which exactly corresponds to the Hebrew exemplar, and 
which in Greek would only be regarded as intolerable when con- 
tinued at some length. In the lxx. we have Gen. 32. 22 dvacn-ds 81 
Trjv vvKTa CKetvrjv, e'Aape t«s 8vo yvvaiKas . . . kcu 8ußt] ..., (23) kcu eXaßev 
avTovs kcu Sießrj k.t.X., which for the most part agrees word for word 
with the Hebrew, except that a perfect agreement would have also 
required kcu dv^arrj ... Kai eXaßev at the beginning, which was felt to 
be intolerable even by this translator. The N.T. writers have also 
in the case of this particular verb usually preferred the participle ; 
co-ordination is only rarely found as in A. 8. 26 dvdo-Tr/öt «a! Tropevov 
(here also D has «vao-ras vopevd-qn; the MSS. often give dvda-ra with- 
out kcu with asyndeton, A. 9. 11 B, 10. 13 Vulgate, 20 D* Vulg., so 
in 11. 7; cp. § 79, 4); L. 22. 17 Xdßere touto kcu SicuxeptcraTe. In 

the introduction to a speech we find already in Hebrew "VEN? used 
with a finite verb such as ' asked ' or ' answered ' : the Greek equi- 
valent for this is Aeywv, numerous instances of which appear in the 
N.T. after diroKpive<rßai, AaAetv, Kpdfav, TrapaKaXeiv etc. But in 
Hebrew the word ' answered ' is also succeeded by ^fiSN*! (lxx. kcu 
d-n-ev), and the same construction occurs in the N.T. e.g. Jo. 20. 28 
aTreKpiOi] Ggj^os kcu eh-ev, 14. 23, 18. 30 (so almost always in John's 
Gospel, unless dveKp. is used without an additional word), L. 17. 20; 
beside which we have direKpldi] Xeycov Mc. 15. 9 (D dnoKpiOels Afyei), 
A. 15. 13 (not in D), d-Ke.KpWy](rav Xeyovo-au Mt. 25. 9, cp. 37, 44 f. 
(Jo. 12. 23), and by far the most predominant formula except in 
John dwoKpidels efa-ev (twice in the second half of the Acts 19. 15 [not 
in D], 25. 9). We never find d-n-oKpivopLevos €?7rev, any more than we 
find direKpcdri etVojv, since the answer is reported as a fact, and there- 
fore in the aorist, while the verb of saying which is joined with it in 
the participle gives the manner of the answer, and must therefore be 

250 PARTICIPLE {II). [§ 74. 3. 

a present participle. John (and Paul) have also the following com- 
binations: Jo. 1. 25 Kai i'ifHi>T7](Tav auTov kuI eiwov aurw (but Mt. 15. 23 
ypu)TOiv Xeyovres, and SO John himself has ypwrijcrav Aey. 4. 31, 9. 2 
etc.), 9. 28 eXoLööpyjcrav <ivtoi> Kai eiVay, 12. 44 inpa^tv Kai etVev (D 
eicpage Kai eAeyev), cp. D in L. 8. 28 (but Mt. 8. 29 has cKpagav 
Aeyo^Tes, SO 14. 30 etc.; Kpd£as Aeyei Mc. 5. 7 [eiTre D], Kpu£as «Aeye 
9. 24 [Aeyet a better reading in D] ; iKpavya^ov [v.l. eKpa^by] Aey. 
Jo. 19. 12, eKpavyaarav Aey. 18. 40); 13. 21 ipLaprvprjcre Kai etVe 
(A. 13. 2 2 ei7T€V papTvp-i'jcras ; Jo. 1. 32 epLapTvprjcrev Aeycov) ; R. 10. 20 
aVoToAyurt Kai Adyei ; Jo. 18. 25 ^pvrycraTo Kai €?7re, Mt. 26. 70 etc. i)pr. 
Aeywv, but A. 7. 35 ov i)pvi)(TavTo «lirovres. 1 The tense in the last 
instance ctjrovTes is occasioned by the fact that i)pv. is not here a 
verbum dicendi ; accordingly we find the same tense elsewhere, 
Jo. 11. 28 e(pioin]crcv Tijv d8e\(pr]v (called) eiVoucra (with the words), 
= Kai et7rei/ 18. 33; A. 22. 24 eKtXevcrev etVayecrÖai . . . et7ras, 21. 14 
rj<ri'xd(rapi.€V €i7rovTes, L. 5. 13 7/^aTO ei7rwv, 22. 8 ä7r€CTTeiAei' ennav (Mt. 
inversely has 7rep.\pas elirev 'sent with the words'; 11. 3 TrepuJ/as Sid. 
tw naOrjTuiv direv is rather different ' he bade them say '). By the 
use of the aorist participle nothing is stated with regard to the 
sequence of time (cp. § 58, 4), any more than it is by the use of 
the equivalent co-ordination with Kai: L. 15. 23 (£aydi/Tes ev<ppavÖwpev, 
= D 4>dywp.iv Kai evcpp. With the finite verb eiVev we do indeed 
occasionally find Aeywv (L. 12. 16, 20. 2; see § 24 s v. Ae'yeti'), but 
other participles, which express something more than merely saying, 
are always aorist participles as in the instances quoted hitherto : 
Trapp^(TLa(Tdp.evoi e. A. 13. 46, Trpo(rev£dp,evoi e. 1. 24, since the two 
verbs, which denote one and the same action, are assimilated to each 
other. Between two participles of this kind a connecting copula is 
inserted : Kpa^ovres Kai AeyovTes Mt. 9. 27, a7roTa£a/xei'os Kai elirtav 
A. 18. 21 (the ß text is different), Paul rather harshly has x a ^P wv 
Kai ß\eTT(jiv Col. 2. 5 meaning 'since I see'; where no such close 
homogeneity exists between them, the participles may follow each 
other with asyndeton, and often are bound to do so: A. 18. 23 
e^TjXdev, Step)(6/iei'os t?)i/ TaAaTtK^v ^wpav, crTr/pc^iDV tovs p-ad-qras, = 
c£rj\8ev Kai 8it]px^To (§ 58, 4) crr-qpi^av (the latter part, being sub- 
ordinated as the sense requires): 19. 16 e'(/iaAd/zevos 6 di>6pw-os «V 
avrous ..., KciTaKvpitvcras ap,(poTepo)v i<r)(v<rev Ka-r' olvtuji', = £<f>ijXcTO Kai 
k.t.A., whereas the reading Kai koto.*.. (n*HLP) connects Karaicvpievetv 
with €<paXe(r8ai in a way that is not so good ; in 18 22 KareXOibv eis 
Kaicrapeiav, aVa/?ds Kai uaTracra/zei'os tovs pafh^rds, Kareßr] ei? 'Ai'Ti- 
o^i-a-v a second ko.1 before dvaßds would be possible but ugly : the 
sentence may be resolved into KarTJXdev eis K., di'aßds Si Kai k.t.X. 
These instances of accumulation of participles, which are not 
uncommon in the Acts (as distinguished from the simpler manner of 

1 Among remarkable instances of co-ordination belongs HaKaxpev ko.1 eßädwtv 
L. 6. 48, as the meaning is ' dug deep'; ßadvvas would therefore be more 
appropriate. But the iax., following the Hebrew, has the same construction, 
iräxwe ko.1 Zopafxev Judges 1.'?. io (Winer). — Also Jo. 8. 59 (Kpvßr] Kai e$rj\6ei> 4k 
tov kpov, - eKpvßy) ($e\duv 'withdrew from their sight.' 

§74-3-5.] PARTICIPLE {IL). 25 I 

the Gospels 1 ), are never devoid of a certain amount of stylistic 
refinement, which is absent from the instances of accumulation in 
the epistolary style of St. Paul, which consist rather of a mere 
stringing together of words. 

4. A thoroughly un-Greek usage, though common in the LXX., is 
the addition to a finite verb of the participle belonging to that verb, 
in imitation of the infinitive which is so constantly introduced in 
Hebrew, and which in other cases is rendered in more correct Greek 
by the dative of the verbal substantive, § 38, 3. The N.T. only has 
this part, in O.T. quotations : Mt. 13. 14 ßXk-Kovr^ ßXkifere,A. 7. 34 
I8wv ei8ov, H. 6. 14. 

5. Participle absolute. — Of the absolute participial constructions 
the classical language makes the most abundant use of the genitive 
absolute : the use of the accusative absolute is in its way as regular, 
but is not found very frequently : the nominative absolute (as in 
Hdt. vii. 157 dA?)s yivopkvi] 1) 'EAAas, x ei P peyaXr) crvvayeTat) is anti- 
quated and was never a common construction. The N.T. has only 
preserved the use of the genitive in this way ; since the so-called 
instances of the nom. absolute to be found there are really no con- 
struction at all, but its opposite, i.e. anacoluthon (see § 79, 7). Now 
the use of the gen. abs. in the regular classical language is limited to 
the case where the noun or pronoun to which the participle refers 
does not appear as the subject or have any other function in the sen- 
tence ; in all other cases the conjunctive participle must be used. 
The New Testament writers on the other hand — in the same way in 
which they are inclined to detach the infinitive from the structure of 
the sentence, and to give it a subject of its own in the accusative, 
even Avhere this is already the main subject of the sentence (§ 72, 2 
and 3) — show a similar tendency to grve a greater independence to 
participial additional clauses, and adopt the absolute construction in 
numerous instances, even where classical writers would never have 
admitted it as a special license. 2 Mt. 9. 18 Tavra avrov XaXovvros 
avTols, l8ov ap-^wv ... TrpocreKvvti av-rw ; cp. io (where it is more excus- 
able), 18. 24, 24. 3, 26. 6, 27. 17, in all which cases the noun which is 
the subject of the participle appears in the dative in the main sentence 
(in 5. 1 avnZ is omitted in B ; in 8. 1 according to «*KL al. Ave 
should read KaraßdvTi airü ... SjKoXovdrjo-av awü, likewise grossly 
incorrect, cp. inf.; a similar v.l. appears ibid. 5, 28, 21. 23, but in 
8. 28 x* gives a correct construction reading iXdovrav airüv); so also 
Mc. 13. 1, L. 12. 36, 14. 29 (D gives a different and correct constr.), 
17. 12 (BL om. avTip ; D is quite different), 22. 10, Jo. 4. 51 (aiVw 
om. d), A. 4. 1 (D om. avrois). Again we have in Mt. 18. 25 p) 
4'\ovtos avrov aVoSourai, 1/ceAewev avrov 6 Kvpios Trpadrjvat (the accusa- 
tive following) : SO Mc. 5. 18, 9. 28 (v.l. elcreXdovra avrov ... km] puntav 

1 Occasionally, however, it is found there as well : Mt. 14. 19 KeXevaas (fc*Z 
iKeXevaev) ... Xa/3cbj' ... dvaß\e\f/as, "27. 48 ... Kai Xaßwv ... TrXrjaas re (re om. 
D) ... kclI Trepideis. 

2 On the same usage in the lxx. see Viteau, p. 199 f. {e.g. Gen. 18. 1, Ex. 
5. 20). 

252 PARTICIPLE (II.). [§ 74. 5-6. 

avrov), 10. 17, 11. 27 (-pus tti'roi'), 13. 3, L. 9. 42, 15. 20, 18. 40, 
22. 53 («V ep.k), Jo. 8. 30 (ei's avrov), A. 19. 30 (aÜTüi' om. D), 21. 17 
(the ß text is different), 25. 7, 28. 17 (rrpos avroifc), 2 C. 12. 21 (v.l. 
iXdovra fxe, and without the second fie). If the accusative is depen- 
dent on a preposition, and the participle precedes the accusative, it 
is of course impossible to make it into a conjunctive participle. — If 
the word in question follows in the genitive, the result is the same 
incorrect pleonasm of the pronoun as is seen in the case of the dative 
in the example quoted above from Mt. 8. 1 with the reading of N*: 
Mt. 6. 3 crov ttoiovi'tos k\ei)pocrvvi]v pi] yvtuTco ?/ äpicrrepä «rov (Herm. 
Sim. ix. 14. 3 Karetfidappkvwv -i)pwv ... r>/v (wijv i)p.wv), cp. 5. I if ai'rw 
is omitted (with B, vide supra). The instance which intrinsically is 
the harshest, and at the same time the least common, is that where 
the word in question is afterwards used as the subject, as in Mt. 1. 18 
pvi](TrevdeLO'i)<i T/ys jXQTpbs avrov Mapia? tw 'Iwcr>y</), 7rpiv r) wveXOelv 
auTous evped)), an anacoluthon which after all is tolerable, and for 
which classical parallels may be found (Kühner ii. 666); but A. 22. 17 
is an extremely clumsy sentence, 8k poi v7roo-rpk\pavri els 
'Iepowr., [kcu] 7Tpoo-ev\o[j.kvov pov ev tm lepw, yevko~dai p.e. kv eK&räcrei 
(koX should apparently be removed, because if it is kept the connec- 
tion of the dat. and gen. remains inexplicable). Cp. also L. 8. 35 D; 
Herm. Vis. i. 1. 3 iropevop.kvov pov et's Kovpas kolI So£ci£övtos (tSd^a^ov 
as) ..., 7repnra.TL?)v dcpvirvwcra. The gen. abs. stands after the subject 
in H. 8. 9 O.T., cp. Viteau, p. 210 (the meaning is 'in the day when 
I took'); it has the same position after the dative in 2 C. 4. 18 ->]plv, 
p.r) a-KOTTovvTdiv rjpiov (but D*FG read with an anacoluthon . pi) 
(TKoirovvTes, perhaps rightly), Herrn. Vis. iii. 1. 5 (ftpiKt] poi Trpoo-rjXOev, 
fxövov p.ov öVtos. — -The omission of the noun or pronoun which agrees 
with the part., if it can be readily supplied, is allowable in the N.T. 
as in the classical language : Mt. 17. 14 «BZ (C etc. insert atiiw), 26 
(with many variants), L. 12. 36 eXOovros kuI Kpovcravros, A. 21. 31 
fyjTovvTioi/ (ibid. 10 with i)pwv inserted as a v.l.), etc. Another 
instance of the omission of a noun with the participle occurs in Attic 
where the participle is impersonal; this is a case for the employment 
of the accusative absolute, e£ov, tVapx 01 ') 7rpocrT«Tay/i.€i'ovetc, followed 
by an infinitive. But in the N.T. igov is only used as a predicate 
with an ellipse of ko-ri, A. 2. 29, 2 C. 12. 4, and even Luke is so far 
from employing a passive part, in this way that he says very awk- 
wardly in A. 23. 30 /j.y]i>v9eio-i^ 8k poi eTrißovXijs eis tov ai'Spa ecrecrdai, 
instead of p.^vvdev kirißovXrjv «r. (Buttm. 273). The solitary 
remaining instance, rather obscured, of the ace. abs. is ti»xo^ 
'perhaps' in 1 C. 16. 6, L. 20. 13 D, A. 12. 15 D. 

6. Particles used with a participle. — It has already been noticed 
above in 2 that the particular relation in which the additional parti- 
cipial clause (whether absolute or conjunctive) stands to the principal 
sentence may be rendered perceptible by the insertion of a particle 
(KcuVep, Kal ravra, kcutoi). This usage is but slightly represented in 
the N.T.; since even of the temporal use of äpa to denote simultan- 
eousness or immediate sequence (rplßiov 'äpa. e<pr) ' while rubbing ') it 
contains no real instance (A. 24. 26 äpa. koX cX-ifav is 'withal in the 

§ 74- 6. § 75- 1- 2.] PARTICIPLE (II). NEC A Til ES. 253 

expectation,' 27. 40 dp.a dvevres ' while they at the same time also,' 
Col. 4. 3 Trpoa-ev^ofjievoi afxa koll Trepl ?y/xo)v, ' at the same time for us 
also'; cp. ä/jux 8e kuI with imperat. in Philem. 22). A more frequent 
particle with a participle is the simple ws (coo-n-ep in A. 2. 2, denoting 
comparison; wo-ei 'as though' R. 6. 13); however the participle is 
for the most part used with o>s (as with wcret in the passage of 
Romans) in just the same way as a noun of any kind may be used 
with these particles, cp. §§ 34, 5 and 78, 1, and of constructions 
which may really be reckoned as special participial constructions 
with cus, many are entirely or almost entirely wanting in the N.T. 
Thus we never find ws with the ace. abs. (w? rors Oeovs /caAAio-Ta 
et'SoTas ' in the belief that ') ; and again ws with a future participle 
occurs only in H. 13. 17 dypvirvovo-iv ws Xoyov aTroSwaovTes 'as persons 
who' (cp. L. 9. 52 bql quasi 2)araturi = ios eroi/*ao-ovTes ; Mc. 11. 13 
«is evpijcroiv Origen, minusc. 100, afq). In all these instances ws with 
a participle gives a reason on the part of the actor or speaker. The 
use of this construction without an ace. abs. and with a participle 
other than the future is more common : L. 16. 1 and 23. 14 'on the 
assertion that,' 'on the plea of,' so also in A. 23. 15, 20, 27. 30 (here 
with Trpo<f>d<rei prefixed) ; see also A. 3. 12 ri drevi^Te, ws 
7reTToirjK6crLv 'as though we had,' 1 C. 7. 25 yv«j/A?/v SiSw/xi ws ijX^^evos, 
'as one who,' 'in the conviction that I am one'; 2 C. 5. 20 (gen. abs.), 
H. 12. 27 ; A. 20. 13 (ß text) ws juiAAwv ... 'since he said that'; in 
the negative we have ovx ws 'not as if A. 28. 19, 2 Jo. 5. We also 
find abbreviated expressions where the participle is dropped : 
Col. 3. 23 £uv TTOirjre, €K '/'i'X^S ipydfecrOe, ws tw Kvpuo (sc. lpya(jöp.evoi 
avro) Kai ovk dvOpwiTois, 1 C. 9. 26, 2 C. 2. 17, E. 6. 7, 1 P. 4. II, 
R. 13. 13 o>s iv r]pepa = ws r)<xs oi'o-^s, 2 Th. 2. 2 8t eTrtcrToAiys, ws 
St' r)p,iov, SC. y€ypap,p,£vij^, or rather = ws i)p<J)v yeypa(f)6rwv avri]v, G. 3. 16 
etc. Classical Greek has similar phrases. — "Av with the participle 
has quite gone out of use, 1 as it has with the infinitive. — Where a 
participial clause is placed first, the principal clause which follows 
may be introduced by a oüras referring back to the previous clause; 
but this classical usage is found only in the Acts : 20. 1 1 6/ziA?ycras 
..., oxrrws Z£rj\8ev, 27. 10. 


1. The distinction between the two negatives, the objective ov and 
the subjective nrj, in classical Greek is to some extent rather compli- 
cated ; on the other hand in the Kotvj of the N.T. all instances may 
practically be brought under the single rule, that ov negatives the 
indicative, |atj the other moods, including the infinitive and parti- 

2. Principal clauses with the indicative. — The prohibitive future 
makes no exception to the rule just given : ov cpovevo-eis Mt. 5. 2 1 

1 'ßs av with a gen. abs. in Barn. 6. 11 is different ; cp. the modern Greek 
{w)adv ' as,' Hatzidakis Einl. in d. ngr. Gr. 217 ; infra § 7S, 1. 

254 NEGATIVES. [§75-2-3. 

O.T. (§ 64, 3). 1 But in an interrogative sentence both ov and pi) are 
employed (as in classical Greek) : ov (or ov /x?/, § 64, 5) if an affirma- 
tive answer is expected, /«/ if a negative ; so in L. 6. 39 /i.^™ Svvarai, 
TvcfiXbs Tv<t>\bv 68yjydv ('is it possible that... V Ans. Certainly 
not), oi\l d/ufjurepoi eis ßoßvvov epLTrevovvTai (Ans. Yes, certainly). Of 
course the negative used depends on the answer expected and not on 
the actual answer given: thus in Mt. 26. 25 Judas asks like the other 
Apostles (22) fxi]TL eyu> dfxi,paßßi ('it surely is not I?'), and receives 
the answer o-v eSras. 2 (In L. 17. 9, according to AD al., the answer 
of the first speaker is appended with the words ov 8oko>.) Mtjtl 
instead of jxi] is a very favourite form in questions of this kind, just 
as ouv_i takes the place of oü in those which expect a positive answer; 
but the simple forms are also used. In questions introduced by pj 
the verb itself may also be negatived, as in classical Greek, of course 
with ov : this produces fir) ... ov (and an affirmative answer is natur- 
ally now expected) : R. 10. 17 p) ovk r/Kowav 'can it be that they 
have not heard it?' (Ans. Certainly they have), 1 C. 11. 22 al. 
(only in the Pauline Epp.). — M-qrt is further found in the elliptical 
[Mi'jTiye 1 C. 6. 3 =7rocrw ye p.aXXov 'much more ' (pij rt, ye 6V7 tois Oeols 
Demosth. 2. 23). 

3. Subordinate clauses with the indicative. — The chief point to 
notice here is that el with the indicative (supposed reality) takes the 
negative ov in direct contradistinction to the classical language, as it 
even does in one instance where the indicative denotes something 
contrary to fact: Mt. 26. 24 = Mc. 14. 21 KaXbv rjv airrw, et ovk eyev- 
vrjOrj 6 avdpwrros e/cetvos. Elsewhere however these suppositions 
contrary to fact take /«/ : Jo. 15. 22 et /x?) rjXdov ..., d/xapTtai/ ovk 
ei'^oo-av, 24, 9. 33, 18. 30, 19. 11, Mt. 24. 22=Mc. 13. 20, A. 26. 32, 
R. 7. 7, no distinction being made as to whether el jx-q means 'apart 
from the case where' (nisi) or 'supposing the case that not' (si non, 
as in Jo. 15. 22, 24). Moreover in other cases where the meaning is 
nisi el fi-q is used (cp. Kühner ii. 2 744), viz. either where, as generally 
happens, no verb follows the particle, as in Mt. 5. 13 et's ov&lv el jxrj 
ßXijdrjvai (and in et 8e p; ye, § 77, 4), or where a verb is used, which 
is generally in the pres. indie, as in et /z?/ rive's elo-iv G. 1. 7, cp. 
§ 65, 6. But in all other cases we find et ov (even in L. 11. 8 et Kai 
ov 8<ocrei for eav /cat p) Sw, § 65, 5) ; an abnormal instance is 1 Tim. 
6. 3 el Tis eTepoSiSacrKaAet Kai firj irpoo-'e^eTau k.t.X. (literary language; 
et ... ov appears in 3. 5, 5. 8), and another is the additional clause in 
D in L. 6. 4 et Se p) o?Sas. — Similar to this is the use of ov in relative 
sentences with the indicative ; exceptions are (1 Jo. 4. 3 o p.rj 
op,o\oyel a wrong reading for o Xvei), Tit. 1. 11 StSao-Kovres ci p) Set, 
2 P. 1. 9 cS /xr) irapeo-Tiv ravra, rvcpXos eo-riv (literary language ; there 
is no question here of definite persons or things, Kühner ii. 2 745). 
In affirmations introduced by on (or ws), also in temporal and causal 

1 Still Clem. Horn. iii. 69 has fi-qd^va fuartaere (in the middle of positive futures 
expressing command). 

2 Still Jo. 21. 5 fi-q ti irpocr<t>ayiov ^x €Te '■> hardly lends itself to the meaning 
' certainly not I suppose ' (cp. also the use of this negative in 4. 33, 7. 26). 

§75-3-5.] NEGATIVES. 2 $$ 

sentences with the indicative, the general use of ov is a matter of 
course ; H. 9. 17 eVet pr^n-ore (or /a?) rore) lcr)(yei, ore {?) 6 StaOepevos 
is an interrogative sentence (Theophylact), 1 and the only exception 
to this rule which can be established is Jo. 3. 18 6 /a?) Trio-TeiW r/S?? 

KtKpLTai, OTL Al>) TreTTt(TT€VK€V €IS TO OVOpa. K.T.X. 2 After pt'pTWS OV /A?) 

expressing apprehension, if the verb itself is negatived, an ov must 
be inserted before the conjunctive : Mt. 25. 9 p/ttotc ovk dpKecnj (cp. 
the v.l. in the same passage, infra 6) ; cpoßovpat, pi) ... ov 2 C. 12. 20. 

4. The infinitive. — M?/ is used throughout, since in H. 7. n it is 
not the inf. but only the idea Kara t?)v rd£iv 'Aapwv which is negatived 
(cp. in class. Greek Lys. 13. 62 el pev ov ttoXXoI [ = oA6-yoi] fjo-ai', 
Kühner ii.' 2 747 f). We may particularly note the use of /a?/ accord- 
ing to classical precedent (Kühner 761 f.) in certain instances after 
verbs containing a negative idea (a pleonastic use according to our way 
of thinking) : L. 20. 27 01 avriXkyovres (AP al.; nBCDL read Xeyovres 
as in Mt. and Mc.) dvdo-Tacnv jit) dvai [dvTtXkyuv here only takes an 
inf.), 22. 34 ecus Tpis dTrapvijcnj /a?) eitievai Ate (Ate dir. el8. nBLT ; dirapv. 
not elsewhere with an inf.), cp. 1 Jo. 2. 22 6 dpvovp.evo<s on 'I?;o\ ovk 
eo-riv 6 Xpia-Tos (as in Demosth. 9. 54 dpv. <os ovk «Vi tolovtol), 
H. 12. 19 TrapyTijo-avTo prj (om. N*P) irpoo-Tedrjvai, G. 5. 7 n's v/Aas 
evcKOipev dXijdeia At?) ireiOecrdat j (iyKOTrreo-dai takes tov iXdelv in 
R. 15. 22, cp. Kühner 768 a). But in H. 11. 24 we have i)pmjo-aTo 
('scorned') Aeyeo-#ai ; and kwXvciv is regularly used without a subse- 
quent pij, a construction which is also admissible in classical Greek, 
Kühner 767 f.; see however § 71, 2 and 3. 

5. The participle. — Here the tendency of the later language to 
use /A?; is noticeable even in writers like Plutarch ; the Attic 
language on the other hand lays down rules as to the particular 
negative required according to the meaning of the participle in indi- 
vidual cases. Hardly any exceptions to the N.T. usage occur in Mt. 
and John : Mt. 22. 1 1 elSev dvöpwirov ovk evheSvpevov ZvSvpa ydpov, = 
6s ovk eve3eS?jTo (Attic Greek would therefore have o?3 ; but C 3 D have 
/a?) perhaps correctly, cp. 12), Jo. 10. 12 6 pio-dwrbs ko.1 ovk &v iroipi)v 
(no definite person is referred to, therefore Attic would use /a?/) : in 
this passage ov is no doubt a Hebraism, since in the case of a parti- 
ciple with the article the LXX. render n^ by oi>, as in G. 4. 27 O.T. 
?) ov TiKTovo-a k.t.X., E. 9. 25 (Viteau, p. 217 f.). There are more 
exceptions in Luke : 6. 42 avrbs ... ov ßXkirwv (D is different), A. 7. 5 
ovk öVtos gi?Jtü> tckvov, 26. 2 2 ovSeu Iktos Aeywi/, 28. 17 oi8ev ... 7rot?;o"as 
(all correct Attic Greek). Ot>x 6 rvx^v ' no ordinary person ' explains 
itself (it is the single idea in tv\wv which is negatived, supra 4) 

1 'Errei ait} instead of eirel oti is an established usage in Clem. Horn. (ix. 14, 
xviii. 6), and for many instances of eirel ait; in Philostratus see W. Schmid 
Atticism, iv. 93 ; but at any rate in the passage of Hebrews tr^n-ore (act; tots 
tf*D*) is clearly interrogative ('never' would be ^M-n-ore or ovde-n-ore). Cp. 
further § 82, 2. 

2 It is said (Viteau, p. 213 f.) that the second ait; is here occasioned by assimi- 
lation to the first, i.e. the use of act; is explained as a piece of carelessness, 
which I should rather attribute to the copyist than to the author. 

256 NEGATIVES. [§75-5-7. 

A. 19. ir, 28. 2 ; there is a different reason for ov in 28. 19 (1 Th. 
2. 4) ov\ m €xwv k.t.X. ('I have not done this as one who' etc.). 
Instances of ov in Paul (Hebrews and Peter) : (R. 9. 25 O.T. [vide 
supra] tov ov Xabv k.t.X. after the Hebrew, —tou ovk 6vt<l X. in class. 
Greek ; cp. 1 P. 2. 10), 2 C. 4. 8 f. OXifSopevoi aAA' ov o-rwoxupov- 
pevoi k.t.X. (here again it is the single idea in o-Tevox- which is nega- 
tived), Ph. 3. 3 Kal ovk Iv o-apKL 7T£7roi#OTe5, Col. 2. 19 Kai ov Kparutv 
k.t.X. (elsewhere Kai pa) is used, as in L. 1. 20 &tq o-iw7rwv Kai pi) 
Svvdpevos XaXij(rai) 1 : H. 11. I Trpa.ypa.Twv ov ßXuropevwv ( = Att. wv 
av tis pi) opa), 35 ov 7rpoar8e£dpevoi (correctly) : 1 P. 1. 8 ov ovk i'Sovtcs 
dyaTraTe correctly, but the writer continues with eis ov dpn pi) opaWes 
7rto-TewvT£s 8e, where it is artificial to wish to draw a distinction 
between the two negatives. With ws (with which Attic prefers to 
use ov, Kühner 755) we have 1 C. 9. 26 ws ovk a&^Aws ... ws ovk dkpa 

6. Combined negatives. — For pa) ov vide supra 2 and 3 ; for ov pi) 
(frequently used) see § 64, 5, with the conj. or fut. indie; once we 
find as a v.l. piproTt ov pi) Mt. 25. 9 BCD al., vide supra 3 ad fin. — 
The only examples of ov ... ov, ov ... pr\ neutralizing each other are 
1 C. 12. 15 ov Trapa. tovto ovk eWiv €K tou crwpaTos (cp. pi) ... pi) in 
L. 14. 29 D, i'va pi)ttot€ . . . prj iV^iVr/), A. 4. 20 ov Svvdpeda ... pi) 
AaAetv (classical usage corresponds), apart from the instances where 
the second negative stands in a subordinate clause, viz. otSeis - 6? 
(class. oo-Tis) ov (but here we do not find the classical practice of 
directly connecting ovSet? with, and assimilating it to, the relative, 
Kühner 919, 5) Mt. 10. 26, L. 12. 2, ou...Ö s ov Mt. 24. 2 al.;- the 
same meaning is expressed by giving an interrogative form to the 
principal clause and omitting the first negative (Buttmann 305), tis 
ecr-riv ...os 01) A. 19. 35. — The classical combination of negatives ov 
(pi]) . . . oi'Sei's (//r/Sets) and the like, to intensify the negation, is not 
excessively frequent : the instances are Mc. 15. 4 oik diroKplvrj ox8ev\ 
5 OVK6T6 ovSev aTreKpiOr], L. 10. 19 oi'Sev .. ou pi) (not in D), 23. 53 ovk 
rjv ovSeTra) ovSeis, A. 8. 39 ovk ... otKert, Mc. 11. 14 pijKeTt ... pi-jSels, etc. 
(ovSejroTe poi oüSeis Herrn. Mand. iii. 3) ; on the other hand we find 
(contrary to the classical rule. Kühner 758, but cp. 760, 4) ov\ 
dp7ra(ret Tts Jo. 10. 28, ov ... vtto tivos 1 C. 6. 12, oi'Se tov rraTepa tis 
eVtytvaio-Kei Mt. 11. 27, 12. 19, owVe ... tis A. 28. 21, ov 8wi)cri) eVi 

OlKOVOp(.lv L. 16. 2, OV ...7TOT€ 2 P. 1. 2 1. 

7. Form and position of the negative. — The strengthened form 
oi\(, besides being used in questions (supra 2), is also specially 
frequent where the negative is independent = 'no,' L. 1. 60, ovxh 
Aeyo> vplv 12. 51, 13. 3, 5 (the opposite to which is vat [Attic never 
has vaiy/], Aeyw vplv 7. 26 ; ov A. vplv would not have been quite 
clear, though ov also appears elsewhere for 'no,' Mt. 13. 29 etc., and 
in a strengthened form ov ov like vai vat. Mt. 5. 37 s ); the longer 

1 In E. 5. 4 to. ovk avqKovTa is only a v.l. for S ovk äviJKfv, see § 63, 4. In 1 C. 
11. 17 read oi'tc eiraivu (with a stop before it, and wapayyeWoi). 

2 So too in 2 C. 1. 17 iW rj irap 1 epol rb val vol Kal rb oi) od ; but in Ja. 5. 12 
the words should apparently be divided, ifru) 5e v/xCov to vai vai ('let your yea 
be a yea, and nothing more ') Kai to oi) ov. 

§75- 7. §76-1-] NEGATIVES. OTHER ADVERBS. 257 

form of the negative is also occasionally used elsewhere, Jo. 13. 10 f. 
ovy\ 7ravT€S, 14. 22, 1 C. 10. 29, ttüjs ovyi R. 8. 32, oir^t p.dXXov 1 C. 
5. 2, 6. 7, 2 C. 3. 8. — The position of the negative is as a matter of 
course before the thing to be negatived, especially therefore does it 
stand before the verb ; frequently negative and verb coalesce into a 
single idea, as in ovk eQ> (or the more colloquial ovk a<£iw) ' prevent/ 
A. 19. 30 etc. A separation of the negative from the verb may 
cause ambiguity, as in A. 7. 48 aAA' ouy. o v^io-tos ev x ec P 07roi '''J TOl ' i 
KaToiKet (as if the writer's intention was to state that someone 
else dwelt therein); Ja. 3. 1 p) 7roAAoi 8i8do-K<xXoi yiveo-Qe; hence 
the tendency is to place it immediately before the verb, evbs ovk 
€o~tiv G. 3. 20. A difficulty is caused by ov 7rai'Tcus R. 3. 9, 1 C. 
5. 10, which looks like a partial negation (a general negation being 
expressed by 7ravTws ovk fjv 6eXi]p.a 1 C. 16. 12), but at any rate in 
R. 3. 9 the meaning must be ' by no means.' But in this passage ov 
-. stands by itself, and one can understand that 77-avTws ov would not 
be written (a final position for the negative is quite unusual, and cp. 
ov iravreXws Herrn. Sim. vii. 4) ; Herodotus also has ov8ev (ovSev n) 
7rai/TCüs in this sense, v. 34, 65, vi. 3. In the other passage the meaning 
appears to be rather 'not altogether' (Winer, § 61, 5, cp. Clem. Horn. 
iv. 8, xix. 9, xx. 5). The meaning of the passage 1 C. 15. 51 is 
uncertain on critical grounds : Trdvres (p.ev) ov Koip-qdrjaopeda, Trdvres 
8e dWayijo-ofMeda the reading of B al. gives a quite unsatisfactory 
sense (unless iravres ov is taken as = ov 7ravTes, as it is at any rate 
used in Herrn. Sim. viii. 6. 2 Trdvres ov p-erevo-qo-av 'not all '), but there 
are several other readings supported by the authority of MSS. and 
Fathers, see Tischendorf. — The order of words in H. 11. 3 is correct 
in classical Greek, eis to p,rj Ik <£au'o/xei'wv ( = Ik yu?) c£.) to ßXeiropevov 
yeyovevcu (2 Mace. 7. 28 on ovk e£ ovtcov eiroi-qo-ev avrd 6 öeds), since 
participles and adjectives used in connection with a preposition have 
a tendency to take any adverbial words which are in apposition with 
them before the preposition, as in ov perd 71-oAAas A. 1. 5, L. 15. 13 D 
(al. fier' ov rroXXas, as in A. 27. 14 fier ov iroXv), Demosth. 18. 133 
ovk iv Seovn ' unseasonablj' ' (like ws els eAa^io-ra, ovtw fj-e\pi Troppoi 
and many others). 


1. Adverb as predicate. — Adverbs like iyyvs and iröppoi may, as in 
the classical language, be joined with eiWi as predicates, or be used 
as predicates with an ellipse of dvai, e.g. 6 Kvpios iyyvs Ph. 4. 5, no 
less than prepositions with their cases which are so abundantly used 
in this way, e.g. rjv Iv rrj 7roAei. The use of ovtws as a predicate is less 
classical : Mt. 1. 18 ■>} yeveo-is ootids tjv (for toicu't»; ?]v or ovtws €o~xev\ 
19. IO ei oi'tco? IcTTtv f) aiTia tov dvdpdyirov k.t.X., R. 4. 18 O.T., 1 P. 
2. 15 (although eWerai ovtws, i.e. ws Aeyets, and eo-Tiv ovtws in an 
answer are also classical constructions) ; besides this use we have 
o{!tw? '{\n in A. 7. 1 etc. Another predicative use of ovtws occurs in 
R. 9. 20 Tt fie e7rot^o"as ovtojs, = toiovtov. The phrase to elvat, I'cra (an 
adverbial neut. plur.) dew Ph. 2. 6 is in agreement with an old usage 


258 OTHER ADVERBS. [§76.1-4. 

of the language, cp. Thuc. iii. 14 ixra kcu ik<jtcu ko-fikv, Winer, § 27, 3. 
With yU'ea-Oat (with which verb the use of an adverb is in itself 
quite unobjectionable) we have 1 Th. 2. io « oo-iws kcu Sinaius koi 
a^ie/i.7rTws tois TTtcrTevovcrLV £yevij6r)fiev (beside 2. 7 iyevtjßrjfiev 
ij-n-LOi) ' we have behaved '; cp. A. 20. 18 7rws ... Iyf.v6jj.i-jv (D 7roTa7rws 

2. There is a tendency in Greek to express certain adverbial ideas 
by particular verbs : thus ' secretly ' or ' unconsciously ' is expressed 
by kavOavtiv with a participle, § 73, 4 (H. 13. 2; elsewhere the 
adverb Xddpa is used as also in class. Greek, Mt. 1. 19 etc.), 'con- 
tinuously,' 'further,' 'incessantly' by SiartXeiv, eirifievetv, ov SiaAei7rav, 
vide ibid.; cp. with an infinitive <f>i\ovcri Trpoo-ev^o-Oai 'gladly' (Mt. 
6. 5, Winer, § 54, 4), and (with an imitation of Hebrew) TrpocrWero 
Trkjixpai L. 20. n f. (not in D) = 7raA.11/ eTeixxpev in Mc. 12. 4, although 
(according to A. 12. 3 Trpoo-eOero o-vXXaßel v Kai Utrpov) it must rather 

be rendered 'he proceeded to' (Hebr. j 5]9^ s - w ^h an inf.); the 
same meaning is elsewhere given by the participle of irpoo-r iQkvai, 
irpoo-Qds elirev L. 19. II, like Trpoo-6eio-a eVe/cev LXX. Gen. 38. 5 
' further.' 

3. Of the correlative adverbs (§ 25, 5) the interrogative form is 
used instead of the relative in exclamations : jto? Sw-koAov kern Mc. 

10. 23, cp. 24, L. 18. 24, 7tws o-vvkypfiai L. 12. 50, 7T(os e<£i'Aei avrov 
(Attic oa-ov) Jo. 11. 36 (Herrn. Mand. xi. 20, xii. 4. 2). Cp. the 
Pronouns, § 51, 4. Still in R. 10. 15 O.T. we have ws iopaioi k.t.A., 

11. 33 (is dve^epevvrjra k.t.X. — "Ottos (D o>s) in an indirect question 
representing 7ros is only found in L. 24. 20 (cp. § 50, 5). On 7ros = ws 

= 6ti see § 70, 2. — ('O-re fiev ... ore Se for 'now... now,' instead of 

totc ficv . . . Tore Se, occurs in Barn. 2. 4, 5 [a Hellenistic use ; cp. os 

filv ... os Se, § 46, 2] ; but we also find 7ro-re fikv .. irorl Se in Barn. 

10. 7, which is classical ; in the N.T. no instances of these phrases 
are attested). 

4. Instances of attraction with adverbs of place, as for instance in 
class. Greek we have 6 e'/ceitov n-oAe/xos (for 6 Iko. &v) Sevpo ?y£ei (Demosth. 
1. 15 ; Buttm. p. 323), cannot be quoted from the N.T., except the 
passage L. 16. 26 /t?;S' ol kKelßev (ol before eV is omitted by n*BD) 
-/jo? vp.ds Stawepioa-Lv, where however we might supply dkXovres 
8taß-qvau from the preceding clause. Still we find a corresponding 
Use of e'£ instead of kv : L. 11. 13 6 irarifp 6 e£ ovpavov Swcret Trvev/xa 
dyiov (6 before e£ ora, nLX), Mt. 24. 17 fir) Karaßdrio dpa to. (D Spat 
n = Mc. 13. 15) eK rrjs oi'/aas avrov, Col. 4. 16 Tr)v ck AaoSi/ceias 
(iTrtcrToXifv) i'va /ecu v/iets dvay voire, the letter which you will find 
there. (But in Ph. 4. 22 ol e« rrjs Kaio-apos oi/aas membership is 
denoted by e£, as also in ol c'k irepirofirjs R. 4. 12, cp. § 40, 2; 
dcrird^ovat vfids ol oVo rrjs 'IraAias H. 13. 24 is ambiguous and 
obscure, as the place where the letter was written is unknown.) — 
An attraction, corresponding to that of the relative (§ 50, 2), is found 
in the case of an adverb in Mt. 25. 24, 26 o-wdyojv ößev ( = knddev ov) 

OV 8l€0-KOpTTlO-aS. 

§ 77- 1-2-] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). 259 


1. One part of the functions of the particles (including the con- 
junctions) is that they serve to give greater prominence to the modal 
character of the sentence, as is the case with the particle av and the 
interrogative particles, but their more usual function is to express 
the mutual relations existing between the sentences and the clauses 
which compose them : membership of a single series, antithesis, rela- 
tion between cause and effect, or between condition and result etc. 
The number of particles employed in the N.T. is considerably 
less than the number employed in the classical language, see § 26, 2; 
still in spite of this it appears excessively large in comparison with 
the poverty displayed by the Semitic languages in this department. 

2. On the particle av, cp. §§ 63 ; 65, 4-10; 66, 2 (70, 5 ; 74, 6).— 
Direct interrogative sentences, which are not introduced by an 
interrogative pronoun or adverb, but expect the answer 'yes' or 
'no,' do not require a distinguishing particle any more than in 
classical Greek, since the tone in which they are uttered is a 
sufficient indication of their character, though it is true that when 
they are transmitted to writing the general sense of their context 
is the only thing which distinguishes them, and this in certain 
circumstances may be ambiguous (§4, 6 ; instances of this are 
Jo. 16. 31, 1 C. 1. 13, Viteau p. 23, 50). If an affirmative 
answer is to be intimated, this character of the sentence is marked 
by the insertion of ov, if a negative answer, by the insertion of 
M (F l l ri ) '■> an d this is a case where a question is distinguished as 
such by an external symbol, since the use of p.<) with an indicative 
where the particle is in no way dependent can certainly not be found 
except in an interrogative sentence, cp. § 75, 2. Double questions 
with the distinguishing particles norepov ... i) occur nowhere in the 
N.T. in direct speech (in indirect speech only in John 7. 17 ; also 
Barn. 19. 5); more often the first member of the sentence is left 
without a distinguishing particle, as in G. 1. 10 dpn yap didpunrovs 
TreiOo) •>'} rbv Qedv; (the simple interrogative -ij^an 'or' occurs in 
Mt. 20. 15, 26. 53, 2 C. 11. 7, where FG have 7) pi] 'or perhaps,' a 
combination of particles not elsewhere attested). Still there are 
certain interrogative particles, of which may be mentioned in the 
first place apa or dpa -ye : this, it is true, can only be distinguished 
from the inferential dpa (ye) by the prosody, and it is moreover quite 
rare and only represented in Luke and Paul (therefore a literary 
word) : L. 18. 8 apa evprjcrei rrjv mcrriv «Vt t^s 77} s ; A. 8. 30 dpa ye 
yiVüxr/ceis a dvaytvo'xTKeis ; G. 2. 17 dpa Xpicrros dpaprias SiaKOi-os ; 
p) yevoiTo (this phrase p.rj y. in the Pauline Epp. is always an 
answer to a question, 66, 1 : therefore apa cannot be read here; still 
dpa in this passage has the meaning of ' therefore ' which dpa else- 
where has, § 78, 5). "We have a kindred use of apa (as in classical 
Greek) after rts in Mt. 18. 1 tis apa pei(wv «rriv k.t.A., L. 1. 66 etc. 
(in indirect speech in 22. 23) : after el (indirect and direct) in Mc. 
11. 13, A. 7. 1, 8. 22 (el dpaye 17. 27); after firJTi in 2 C. 1. 17 ; it 


denotes astonishment in A. 21. 38 owe apa o-v et 6 Atyv7rnos; ('not 
then '), while in other cases it corresponds to our ' well ' or ' then ' ; 
ti's apa in Mt. 19. 25, 27 is inferential, 'now,' 'then,' cp. supra on 
G. 2. 17. Again the el of indirect questions (ij 65, 1, cp. 6) may also 
be attached to a direct question: Mt. 12. 10 eTn]pioT7}<rav avrov 
AeyovTes' Et e'£ea-Ttv Tots (TußfSacriv Bepairevaai ; 19. 3 AeyovTes El... 
(it introduces similar words in indirect speech in Mc. 10. 2, Viteau 
p. 22, 1), A. 1. 6, 7. 1 etc. (most frequently in Luke, Win. § 57, 2); 
the usage is unclassical, but is also found in the lxx. (Gen. 17. 17 
etc., Winer loc. cit.). 1 The alternative use of the interrogative fj t 
like the use of the same word affirmatively, is entirely wanting. 

3. Sentences which denote assurance, both direct and indirect (in 
the latter case the infinitive is used), are in classical Greek intro- 
duced by y firjv, which in the Hellenistic and Roman period is some- 
times written in the form of el (accent?) /J-'p' 2 ; so in the LXX. and in 
a quotation from it in H. 6. 14 el p)v evXoywv evXoy-ijcra} o-e (?) KL*). 
Another corroborative word is the particle vat = ' yea,' to which the 
opposite is ov ouy/' 'nay,' § 75, 7. Nat is also used in the emphatic 
repetition of something already stated, 'yes indeed,' L. 12. 5 vat', 
Aeyw vp,iv, TOVTOV cpoßi'jOqTe, 11. 51, Ap. 1. 7, 14. 13, 16. 7 ; also in a 
repeated request Ph. 4. 3, Philem. 20 (it is a favourite word in 
classical Greek in formulas of asseveration and adjuration, e.g. vat 
7rpos twv yovarwv Aristoph. Pax 1113). Nat is not the only form 
for expressing an affirmative answer, the statement made may also 
be repeated and endorsed (as in class. Greek) : Mc. 14. 61 f. o-v ei ...; 
...e'yw dpi, cp. A. 22. 27 where the ß text has eifu for vat of the a 
text; another formula is o-v Aeyets Mt. 27. n, Mc. 15. 2, L. 23. 3, 
i.e. 'you say so yourself, not I' (§ 48, 1), which always to some 
extent implies that one would not have made this particular state- 
ment spontaneously if the question had not been asked; in Jo. 18. 37 
we have o-v Aeyets, on (not 'that,' but 'since,' 'for,' § 78, 6) ßacnXei«; 
el/xi, which is similar to L. 22. 70 u/xets Xeyere, on eyw et/zi. — A certain 
extenuation, and at the same time a corroboration, of a proposition 
made is contained in the word Siyn-ov ' surely,' ' certainly ' (an appeal 
to the knowledge possessed by the readers as well) : it is only found 
in H. 2. 16 (a classical and literary word). 

4. The particle ye which serves to emphasize a word (known by 
the old grammarians as the crvi'8ecrp.os irapaTrX^pwpaTiKO'i) in the N.T. 
is almost confined to its use in connection with other conjunctions, 
in which case it often really sinks into being a mere unmeaning 
appendage. Thus we have apa ye, apa ye (supra 2; §78, 5), K-atrotye, 
p.evovvye § 77, 14 ; frequently et 8e p.i) ye with an ellipse of the verb, 
'otherwise' (classical), Mt. 6. 1, 9. 17 (B omits ye), L. 5. 36 etc., 
2 C. 11. 16 (on the other hand Mc, Jo., and Ap. have this phrase 
without ye), /xvyTtye § 75, 2. Still ye keeps its proper meaning in 

1 It is probably a Hebraism (Viteau), being another rendering (besides /jlti) 
of the Hebrew n. 

2 Blass Ausspr. 33 :i n. 77 ; so also Berl. Aegypt. Urk. 543. 

§ 77- 4-6.] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). 26 1 

aAAa ye el/xi 1 C. 9. 2 ' yet at least I am so to you,' which class. 
Greek would express by separating the particles dAA' ye (and 
the particles are somewhat differently used in L. 24. 21 dAAa ye kou 
(tvv TTacnv toi'tois ' but indeed ') ; also in kcu ye «ri tows SovAovs 
A. 2. 18 O.T. (Herrn. Mand. viii. 5 kcu ye 71-oAAd) 'and also' (or 'and 
indeed '), where again class. Greek would separate the particles kcu 
eVi ye, as St. Paul does in 1 C. 4. 8 koI o</>eAo'v ye eßadiXeva-are 'and 
I would also that ye did ...' (D*FG omit ye) 1 ; and in et ye si quidem 
(R. 5. 6 v.l.) 2 C. 5. 3, E. 3. 2, 4. 21, Col. 1. 23 (classical). It 
appears without another conjunction in L. 11.8 Sid ye rrjv dvcuSeiav 
aÜTou, cp. 18. 5, E. 8. 32 6s ye qui quidem ' Owe who,' Herrn. Vis. i. 
1. 8 äpaprla ye «rri ('indeed it is'), kcu peydXrj. 

5. Particles which connect sentences or clauses with one another 
or place them in a certain relation to each other, fall into two 
classes, namely those which indicate that the clauses possess an 
equal position in the structure of the sentence (co-ordinating 
particles), and those which subordinate and give a dependent char- 
acter to the clauses introduced by them (subordinating particles). 
The former are of the most diverse origin, the latter are for the 
most part derived from a relative stem. They may be divided 
according to their meaning as follows : (only co-ordinating) — (1) 
copulative, (2) disjunctive, (3) adversative ; (only subordinating) — 
(4) comparative, (5) hypothetical, (6) temporal, (7) final, (8) con- 
junctions used in assertions and in indirect questions ; (partly co- 
ordinating, partly subordinating) — (9) consecutive, (10) causal, (11) 
concessive conjunctions. 

6. The copulative conjunctions in use in the N.T. are kcu, re, ovre 
pyre, ovSi fiqSe. In the case of kcu a distinction is made between its 
strictly copulative meaning ('and') and its adjunctive meaning 
('also'). The excessive and uniform use of Kai to string sentences 
together and combine them makes the narrative style, especially in 
Mark, but also in Luke as e.g. in A. 13. 17 ff., in many ways un- 
pleasant and of too commonplace a character, cp. § 79, 1 : whereas 
elsewhere in Luke as well as in John the alternative use of the 
particles Te, 8e, ovv, and of asyndeton gives a greater variety to the 
style, apart from the fact that these writers also employ a sub- 
ordinating or participial construction. Kou may be used even where 
a contrast actually exists: Mc. 12. 12 koI i^qrow avrov Kparijcrai, 
Kai ec^oßrjdqa-av tov ö'xAov, cp. L. 20. 19 (but D in Luke reads l<f>oß. 
81), Jo. 1. 5. It frequently — ' and yet' (kou o/^ws, o/xojs Se are not in 
Use) : Mt. 6. 26 ov <nrelpovcriv ..., kcu 6 Trarrjp vpwv 6 ovpdvios rpe<f>ei 
avTa, 10. 29, Jo. 1. 10, 3. 11, 32 etc. (with a negative in Mt. 11. 17, 
A. 12. 19 etc., where this meaning is less striking), and hence the 
mutual relation of the several clauses is often very vaguely stated, 
and must be helped out with some difficulty by the interpretation 

1 L. 19. 42 is a difficult passage, et lyews /cot crv Kai ye b> rfj rmepa gov tcliitt) 
to. 7rp6s eip-qvqv o~ov, where Eusebius has Kai ye <rv ev, and D /cot <xv ev (Kaiye 
must mean 'at least,' = class, ev ye ry /c.t.X.); also A. 17. 27, for which 
cp. § 74, 2. 


which is put upon the passage, e.g. in Jo. 7. 28 kÜll* oÄxtc Kai o'iSare 
Troßtv elfjLt (as you say), Kai oV e/xavrov ovk iXi'j\v6a, aAA' k.t.A., i.e. 
' and yet in reality 1 did not ' etc., = classical Kai p.rjv, Kalroi, or with 
a participle Kai rauTu aV i/j.. ovk tX^kvOoTa. A different use is that of 
the so-called consecutive «at, in English 'and so' or 'so' : Mt. 5. 15 
dAA' €7rt tv)i> \v\ytav (Ti#eao"ii>), Kai \d/x~ei k.t.A. ( = wcrre Xdinreiv; in 
L. 8. i6 = ll. 33 expressed by IW), H. 3. 19 Kai ßXkiroLiev 'and so 
we see,' opto/xev ovv; this use is specially found after imperatives, 
Mt. 8. 8 eiVe Aoyw, Kai (so) laovycrcrai, cp. L. 7. 7 where BL give a 
closer connection to the clauses by reading Kai laOiJTU) : Ja. 4. 7 
dvTL(TTi]T€ TW Staßokw, Kai <f>€v£trat. d<fi v/xuiv ( = fav^erai yap, ev6v<s 
yap </>.); still we have a similar classical use, Oko-de. ... Kai ... 010-ei 
Soph. O.C. 1410 ff., ireidov Aeyoi'Ti, kou^ aLiapTijo-y 7T0Te El. 1207, 
Kühner ii. 2 792, 5. On Kai with a future following sentences of 
design with a conjunctive, to denote an ulterior result, see § 65, 2 ; 
cp. also Mt. 26. 53, H. 12. 9; further L. 11. 5 n's e£ vluov e£« (pikov, 
Kal —opevo-erai Trpbs avruv ... Kal ei'i"7/ avno — KaKeü'os ... tiTry (§ 64, 6), 
instead of subordinating the clauses by means of Idv or a gen. abs., 
just as the first Kai might also have been avoided by writing '4\o>v 
(/>i'Aoi\ Co-ordination in place of subordination occurs in statements 
of time: Mc. 15. 25 Kai fy wpa TpiTT] Kal ('when' or 'that') io-rav- 
poxrav (but D ecf>v\ao-o-ov which gives a better sense) av-6v (the 
crucifixion has already been narrated in 24), which differs from 
L. 23. 44 Kat rjv i']8rj Ctpa ckt?/, Kai (tkotos eyevero, which may be 
paralleled from classical Greek (Plat. Sympos. 220 C, Win. § 53, 3) ; 
still even Luke has the unclassical use yj^ovo-iv ijfiepat ... Kal ('when') 
L. 19. 43 : Mt. 26. 45, H. 8. 8 O.T. The use of Kai with a finite 
verb after K-ai kykvzro, kykvzro Se, instead of the ace. and inf. which is 
likewise found (§ 65, 5), is an imitation of Hebrew: L. 19. 15 Kai 
tyevero iu tw iiraveXdeiv avrov ... Kal (om. syr. latt.) eiTrev, 9. 28 ey. 8e 
Herd tous Aoyovs tovtovs, wcrel -qpepat. oktcu (§ 33, 2) Kal (om. N*BH 
latt. syr.) ... dveßy], cp. A. 5. 7 (here all MSS. read K-ai), although in 
constructions of this kind the Kai is more often omitted : Mc. 4. 4 
Kai kv tw (T7retpetv, o p.kv eVecrev k.t.A., Mt. 7. 28 etc.; the 
kykvero which is purely pleonastic owes its origin solely to a dis- 
inclination to begin a sentence with a statement of time (§ 80, 1). 
Another Hebraistic use of Kai is to begin an apodosis 1 : L. 2. 21 Kai 
ore kirXrj(rdi](Tav ..., Kai (om. D) eKkijöi] k.t.A., 7. 12 ws 8k ?yyy«rtr ... 
Kai l8oh i^€Kop.L^To k.t.A., where the reading of D shows that this 
use is scarcely different from the use with eyevero, viz. kykvero 8k m 
vyy-fo •••) €$€kolli^€to, cp. also A. 1. io (Kal l8ov), 10. 17 (koI 18. CD 
al., «AB omit K-ai), Ap. 3. 20 after a sentence beginning with lav 
(AP omit Kai). But the case is different with 2 C. 2. 2 el yap kyu> 
Ai>7Tw vpds, Kal t£s o evcfapaivwv p.e, i.e. ' who then,' as Winer correctly 
explains it, comparing Mc. 10. 26 Kai tis SvraTat criodfjvai (cp. also 
Mc. 9. 12 D: el 'HAi'as t\0(i)v diroKaOio-Tavei irdvra, Kal -ircos yeypa7TTai 
...iVa ... e^ovOevrjdrj ;), Jo. 9. 36, 14. 22 « al. (a classical use, Xenoph. 
Cyr. v. 4. 13 etc., Kühner ii. 2 791 f.); Ph. 1. 22 should accordingly 

1 Found also in Homer, e.g. II. A. 478. 

§ 77- 6-8.] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). ' 263 

be interpreted in the same way, « 6e to ^v ev o-apni, tqv-6 poi KapTrbs 
epyov, Kal ti alpq(ropai ; ov yvwpi^a), trwe^oftai 8e k.t.A. 1 

7. KaC meaning 'and indeed' (epexegetic Kai as Winer calls it, 
cp. Kühner 791) appears in Jo. 1. 16 ko.1 \dpiv dvrl xdp^o?, 1 C. 3. 
5, 15. 38 ko.1 cKao-Tü) ; with a demonstrative it gives emphasis, Kai 
TovTov ia-ravpwpevov 1 C. 2. 2, Kai tovto idque R. 13. II, 1 C. 6. 6, 8 
(in 8 there is a v.l. kol Tavra, as in H. 11. 12 and in class. Greek, 
Kühner ibid.). With A. 16. 15 u>s ö"e ißa—rio-ßi], Kal 6 oikos ai'-njs 
('and likewise,' 'together with'; so 18. 2) cp. Aristoph. Ran. 697 f. 
o? p.e6' vpwv ttoAAo. 8ij \ol —arepes h'avpd\i](Tav. It is used after 
•rroXvs before a second adjective, pleonastically according to our usage 
(a classical and literary use), in A 25. 7 ttoAAo, Kai ßapka ahuopara 
(Tit. 1. 10?). It is not used as in class. Greek after 6 avVos, ö/zouu? 
and the like (Kühner 361 note 18). — For kcw 'also' in and after 
sentences of comparison -vide infra § 78, 1 ; it = ' even ' in Mt. 5. 46 
etc., and before a comparative in 11. 9, but in H. 8. 6 60-w Kai 
Kpet-rovos k.t.A. the Kai is the same as that in comparative sentences; 
there is a tendency to use it after otd, cud tovto to introduce the 
result, L. 1. 35, 11. 49. On K-ai -yap see § 78, 6 ; a kindred use to 
this (*cat occupying another position) is seen in H. 7. 26 toiovtos yap Kai eirperrev do^ie/Dei's. In perd Kai KAvypeiTos Ph. 4. 3 it is 
pleonastic, cp. Clem. Cor. i. 65. 1 o-vv Kal «IpovotiWtw. On Kai ... 8e 
vide infra 12. A peculiar (but classical) use of it is after an in- 
terrogative, as in Tt Kai ßa-TL^orrai 1 C. 15. 29, 'why at all?' (or 
'even as much as'), cp. R. 8. 24, L. 13. 7, Kühner 798. 

8. Te by no means appears in all writings of the X.T., and would 
not be represented to any very great extent at all but for the Acts, 
in which book alone there are more than twice as many instances of 
it as occur in the rest of the X.T. together (the instances are equally 
distributed over all parts of the Acts ; next to the Acts the greatest 
number of instances occur in Hebrews and Romans ; there are only 
eight instances in Luke's Gospel 2 ). The use of the simple re (for re 
... Kat, T£ Kat, T€ ... tc vide infra 9) is also foreign for the most part 
to cultured Atticists, while the higher style of poetry uses it abun- 
dantly. In the X.T. re is not often used to connect single ideas (this 
use in classical Greek is almost confined to poetry, Kühner ii. 2 786), 
as in H. 6. 5 Oeov prjp.a Svvdpeis re /zeAAoi'Tos aitovos, 9. I, 1 C. 4. 21, 
cp. further infra 9 ; in the connection of sentences it denotes a closer 
connection and affinity between them : A. 2. 40 erepois tc (Se male D) 
Aoyois — AetWtv Siepaprx'paTO ('and likewise'), 37 KaT€i'i'y?/o-av tt)v 

^n Ja. 4. 15 it is perfectly admissible to let the apodosis begin with Kal 
(both) ^-qaofiev instead of beginning it at Kal iroi-quoßev, Buttm. 311 note. — Co- 
ordination with Kal instead of a subordinate clause : L. 1. 49 b övvarös, Kal ayiov 
to ovo/ia avrov ( =ov tö ov. äy.), L. 8. 12 01 aKOvaavres, efra epx^Tai, Mt. 13. 22. 

2 The simple re only occurs in L. 21. 11 bis, although here too it is followed 
by a Kal, aeicr/jLol re ('and,' re om. AL) peyd\oi Kal ... \ifioi ... etrovrai, (pößrjTpä re 
('and') Kal (Trj/j.e'ta ...ecrrai: unless this is rather a case of asyndeton, vide 9 (since 
re is not a suitable word for a connecting particle). In 24. 20 for öirws (üs D) 
re avrov the correct reading may be that of D ottws (oIis) tovtov. (Still in 23. 36 
D has o£os re irpoo~e<pepov aiVy \eyovres. ) 

264 PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). [§ 77. 8-9. 

KapScav, eirrov re ('and SO they said'), 27. 4 f. i>7re7rAeiVa/*ev W/v 
Kv7rpov ... TO T« TreAayos to /cara T»/i/ KiAiKiav ... 8ta7rAer(ravTes k.t.A. 
(in pursuance of the course adopted). 1 

9. We find the following correlative combinations (meaning 'as 
well... as also') ical ... ical ..., t€...ko,1 (tc Kai), t€...t£. The last 
(which in classical Greek is more frequent in poetry than in prose, 
though in prose it is commoner than a simple re, Kühner ii. 2 788), 
besides its use in ovre ... ovre etc. (inf. 10) occurs in etre ... etre, see 
§ 78, 2; also in edv re ... edv re R. 14. 8 bis; but otherwise only in 
A. 26. 16 5>v re. eZSes wv tc o^O i'/o-o crot ; the combined phrases are 
in this way placed side by side (often = even as ... so ...). T€...KaC 
affords a closer connection than the simple ko.1 : in Attic Greek it is 
generally avoided if /cat would immediately follow re, since in this 
case re might appear to have no point; in the N.T. however it is 
found in this case as well, Mt. 22. 10 irov^povs re kcu dyadovs, A. 1. 1 
iroieiv re kcu St^dcrKetv, 2. 9 f., 4. 27, R. 1. 12 vp,u>v re koli epov, 3. 9 
'IovSatovs re ko.1 "EAArpas, etc. The connection of 'IovSatot and 
"EAAvjves is almost always made by means of re ko.1 or re. ..Kai: 
A. 14. 1 (18. 4 eVeiöeV re 'I. kcu "EAA</vas, for an obvious reason), 
19. 10 (without re D), 17 (om. re DE), 20. 21, R. 1. 16 (re om. «*), 
2. 9, 10. 12 (without re DE), 1 0. 1. 24 (-re om. FG) ; but in 10. 32 
we have dirpocrKoiroi kcu 'lovSatOLS ylvecrde ko.1 "EAA^o-if Kai rj} 
«kk A>/o-ia rod Oeov, where the distinction of the different nationalities 
is kept, whereas in the other passages with re ko.1 the difference is 
rather removed. For ko.1... ko.1 cp. Mt. 10. 28 /cat (not in all MSS.) 
i//i>)(7yi> Kai (Ttofxa, which however may mean 'even soul and body' (as 
is still more clearly the meaning in 8. 27 =Mc. 4. 41 =L. 8. 25 Kai 6 
(ive/xos Kai rj öaAacrcra vttcxkovovctiv aüru), L. 5. 36 Kai to kcuvov o~\icrei, 
Kai tm 7raAatw ov (rvfAcpitiv/jtret, k.t.A. ('on the one hand...on the other,' 
so that there is a double injury); the use is somewhat more frequent 
in John, iVa Kai 6 (nreupiov up,ov x at PV Ka ' ° Oepltjav 4. 36, where the 
two clauses are sharply distinguished: 7. 28 (supra 6), 11. 48 (in 
these two passages the particles have a less definite meaning), 12. 28, 
15. 24 vvv 8e Kai ecopaKacriv Kau ('and yet') /xe/x«ryKao-iv Kai ep.e Kai rov 
irarepa p,ov (Who appear to them to be different Persons). Paul 
uses a double Kai in R. 14. 9 bis, 1 C. 1. 22 etc.; a peculiar instance 
is Ph. 4. 12 oT8a Kai raireivovcrdai, otSa Kai irepio-creveiv , where Kat even 
in the first clause has rather the meaning of 'also.'— In longer 
enumerations re (...) Kai may be followed by a further re, as in 
A. 9. 15 edvtav re (re om. HLP) Kai ßacrtkecov vloiv re 'Icrpa/jX, 26. 10, 
Clem. Cor. i. 20. 3 (on the other hand in L. 22. 66 rb Trpecrßvrepiov 
rov Xaov, dpx^epeh re Kai ypap.p.are?s the last words are an explanatory 
apposition, since otherwise the article must have been used [D Kai 
dp\. kolI 7/).]) ; we have re ... re ... Kai in H. 6. 2 (aVao-Tacrews and 
Kpijxaro<i being closely connected by re ... ko.1), Kal ... kcu 
Kai ... Kai in 11. 32, an enumeration of names, where however the 

1 So in Clem. Cor. i. 20. 10 twice, i. 3 - ii. 1 four times. It cannot be wondered 
at that re was often confused in course of transmission with öe" ; thus re is in- 
admissible in a parenthesis, as in A. 1. 15 NAB have Jjv re for r/v 5e (infra 12). 

§ 77- 9-10.] PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS). 265 

first three conjunctions are wanting in nA : in this passage the re 
must be taken as a connective particle and not as correlative to Kai 
(similarly in A. 13. 1, 1 C. 1. 30), whereas in the long enumerations 
in A. 1. 13 and 2. 9 ff. couples are formed by means of re Kai or a 
simple Kai, and the relation between the several couples is one of 
asyndeton (cp. Mt. 10. 3 f., 24. 38, K. 1. 14, 1 Tim. 1. 9, Clem. Cor. 
i. 3. 2, 35. 5, Herrn. Mand. xii. 3. 1 ; in L. 6. 14 ff. there is a v.l. in 
«BD al. [opposed to A |al.] with a continuous use of Kai, as in the 
reading of all the mss. in Mc. 3. 16 ff.). — Position of the correlative 
re : where a preposition precedes which is common to the connected 
ideas, the re is notwithstanding placed immediately after this pre- 
position, A. 25. 23 crvv re x^^PX ^ KaL o-vSpdaiv, 28. 23, 10. 39 (a 
v.l. repeats the ev), as also in classical Greek (Win. § 61, 6) ; on the 
other hand we have twv Wvwv re xal 'lovSaiwv A. 14. 5 (tw k. kol 
TWV D). 

10. The use of correlative negative clauses with out« ...out« or |*tjt« 
. . . [ATJT6 respectively, and of ov8« or ja^S« respectively as a connecting 
particle after negative sentences (and of Kai ov, xal p-tj after positive 
sentences) remains the same as in classical Greek. Therefore ov ..., 
ovre ... ovre is 'not ... neither ... nor,' Mt. 12. 32 etc.; cp. L. 9. 3 pySev 
..., fxtjre . . . [X'iJTt k.t.A. with Mt. 10. 9 f . (Winer). In 1 C. 6. 9 f. a 
very long enumeration which begins with ovre... ovre etc. finally 
veers round to asyndeton with ov ... ov (once also in Mt. 10. 10 /x?) 
is interposed between several cases of p/Se). Of course it often 
happens, as in profane writers, that ovtc - ov8e, /x^re - prj8e are con- 
fused in the MSS., as is also the case with 6"e and re (supra 8) 1 . If 
ov8e or p;Se stands at the beginning of the whole sentence, or after 
an ov or fiy within the same clause of the sentence, it then means 
'not even,' 'not so much as': Mc. 8. 26 p/oe (p) «*) eis rrjv kwjx-i]v 
do-eXOrjs (with many vv.ll.; the sense requires et7n/s in place of 
elcreXOfls), Mt. 6. 15 etc., Mc. 3. 20 ware /i?) SvvacrOai avrovs [j.r)8e (male 
fxi'jTe nCDE al.) aprov <£ayetv. 2 The positive term corresponding to 
this orSe is Kai ' even,' as the positive equivalent for ov ..., ov8e etc. is 
a series of words strung together by k<xI, but the equivalent for oiVe 
... ovre is Kai ... Kai, or re ... kuI (re) : hence the reading in Mc. 14. 68 
oi're olSol ovre. eVicrrayuai of «BDL appears to be inadmissible, since 
the two perfectly synonymous words could not be connected by Kai 
... Kai, re Kai, and therefore the right reading is that of AKM ovk ... 
ov8e (CE al. read ovk . . . ovre, which seems to be the origin of the 

1 In L. 20. 36 ovre yap is wrongly read by «Q al. for ovde yap (§ 78, 6). In 
Ap. 9. 21 all mss. read oüre several times after ov, as in 21. 4 ; in 5. 4 nearly 
all have ovdeh ..oöre, but in 5. 3 they are divided: in 12. 8, 20. 4 ovde pre- 
ponderates (as also in Jo. 1. 25) : in 7. 16, 9. 4, 21. 23 all have oi<5e\ Ja. 3. 12 
is quite corrupt. 

2 The sequence otire ... oiire .<■. ovre ... ovSe ('nor at all,' as though a single ov or 
ov5a/j.ou had preceded) is perfectly admissible, A. 24. 12 f., Buttm. 315 note. But 
we also find p.T) ... /x-qde (NABCE p-vre) ... p-qre A. 23. 8, where two ideas are con- 
nected and the second is subdivided, cp. for class, exx. Kühner ii. 2 829 c ; 
accordingly in G. 1. 12 ovSe yap (' since not even ') ... TrapfKaßov ovre e8i8dx6yv 
(B al. ) would be possible, though ovde e'8. is better attested and is more regular. 

2 66 PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). [§77.10-12. 

confusion). A disjunctive expression with a negative preceding may 
also be equivalent to ov ..., ov8e, or ov ... outc ... ovk : Mt. 5. 17 pi] 
vojiio-qTt OTt ykOov KaTaAixrai tov vop.oi> i) tojjs TrpofoJTas = ovk rj. Kar. 
o)"t€ t.v. oü't€ t. 7iy>.; A. 17. 29 etc.; cp. inf. 11. — Of course a correla- 
tion of negative and positive members is allowable, though this is 
not a frequent construction in the N.T.: Jo. 4. 11 out« avrki^a e'x«s, 
/ecu to <$>pkap earlv ßadv (D has ovSe, which seems preferable), 3 Jo. 10 
ovrt aÜTos «VtSextTai ... ko.1 tous ßoiiXo/xeiovs kwAvb (in class. Greek 
oiVe ... Kai is very rare, Kühner ii. 2 831 a). A 27. 20 p-^tz ... firjre ... 
T€ (however this re is hardly a correlative, but rather a connecting 
particle). Kot ov after negative sentences, as in Mt. 15. 32 (Jo. 5. 
37 f. ovt€ ... ovre ... ko.1 ... ov) does not imply a correlation, but an 
independent continuation, Buttm. p. 316. (In L. 18. 2 we have tov Oehv 
ov <f>oßovjj.evo<; Kai avdpwTrov ovk kvTp(.irop.evo<;, somewhat incorrectly, 
but in v. 4 nB etc. read ov8£ ävdp. Ivrpkiropai while AD etc. again read 

KCU ...OVK.) 

11. The disjunctive particle is 1), also fj ko.1 'or even' (L. 18. 11 
al.); correlatively 7}... 7} 'either... or' (for which we have the classical 
r/Toi ... 7} in R. 6. 16, Kühner ii. 2 837); in addition to this we have 
ilrt . . . €lV« sive...sive, which strictly introduces subordinate clauses, 
but in virtue of an ellipse may also (as in class. Greek) be used with- 
out a finite verb, as in 2 C. 5. 10 iva Kopio-rjTai e/cao-Tos ... eiVe dyaObv 
€tT€ koikov, E. 6. 8, Ph. 1. 18 etc., and not solely in a disjunctive 
sense, but equally well (as re is included in it) as a copula; cp. § 78, 2. 
H also approximates, especially in negative sentences, to the mean- 
ing of a copula: A. 1. 7 oij ... xpöVous 7} Kaipovs (synonymes), 11. 8 
Koivbv 7} aKadaprov ov8e7rore k.t. A., cp. 10. 18 oi'Se7TOTe 'iipayov irav 
KOLvhv kou (7'} CD al.) aKadapTOV : Jo. 8. 14 018a Toßev rj\6ov Kal ttov 
vTrdyui' v^aeis 8\ ovk oi'SaTe TroOev ep^o/xai 7} irov vTrdyu), 1 C. 11. 27 os dv 
lo-Oirj ... 7} 7rti'77 ... äva^iw?; similarly in interrogative sentences, which 
in meaning are equivalent to a negative sentence, 1 Th. 2. 10 ti's yap 
i)pcov oWis 7) x a P« V o-Tec/>avos (in 20 the positive statement runs 7} 8d£a 
Kal 7} x a /°<*)- H an in interrogative sentences, vide supra 2, is sharply 
disjunctive ('otherwise this must be the case'). A singular instance 
of its use is in 1 Th. 2. 19 (vide supra) ti's yup ... o-Te^avos; 7} (i) is 
wanting in N*) oi'xi Kai vfieis...; where 7} has probably been foisted 
into the text for the sake of the ti's ('who else but') ; cp. Jo. 13. 10 
v.l. (and uAA' 7} inf. 13). 

12. The adversative particles most in use are hi and dXXd, the 
former of which has its correlative in uei/, while the latter usually 
refers to a preceding negative (' but on the contrary '). This refer- 
ence, however, may also be expressed, though not so strongly, by 
Se : A. 12. 9 OVK jJSei ... eSo^ei 8k ('but rather'), 14, H. 4. 13, 6. 12 
etc. A distinction must also be made between contradiction (dAAu) 
and antithesis (8k) : H. 2. 8 ov8kv d^Kev airrw dvinroraKTOV vvv 8k 
ovttoj 6pwp.ev avru) to. TTavTa vir ot er ay p.kv a ('but,' ' on the Other 
hand '). The correlation of pkv and 8e, which is so essentially char- 
acteristic of the classical Greek style, is very largely reduced in the 
N.T., so that pkv is wholly absent from Ap., 2 P., 1, 2 and 3 Jo. 

§ 77- 12-13.] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). 2 6j 

2 TL, 1 Tim., Tit. (fiev in 1. 15 is spurious) and Philemon, and is 
practically unrepresented in Ja. (3. 17 -pürov /tcv ... «rei-ra, an 

antithesis also found in classical Greek without Sk ; cp. Jo. 11. 6, 
1 C. 12. 28), Eph. (4. 11 rois fi£v...Tavs ok), Col. (2. 23, an ana- 
coluthon -without an answering clause), and 1 Th. (2. iS eyw pkv 
UavXos, the antithetical clause being omitted but sufficiently in- 
timated by fiev; classical Greek has a similar use, Hdt. iii. 3 e/xoi pkv 
ov nOavos ['to me at least], Kühner 813 f.): it is also comparatively 
rare in the Gospels as a whole, and only occurs with any frequency 
in Acts, Hebrews (1 Peter) and some of the Pauline epistles. 1 
Moreover a large number of these instances, especially those in Luke, 
are instances of the resumptive pkv oh; § 78. 5, where the fie» in 
very few cases indicates a real antithesis : other examples of ana- 
coluthic pev are also fairly common in Luke, where the style and 
structure of the sentence are more or less harshly violated, as in 
L. 8. 5 f o pkv ... kou t-epov (occasioned by a development of the idea 
being interposed: so in Mc. 4. 4 f. ). A. 1. 1. 3. 13, 21, 17. 30, 27. 21 
(cp. also 2 C. 11. 4, H. 7. 11) : not to mention the instances, where 
the omission of 6k is excusable or even classically correct, viz. -p~ - E. 1. 8, 3. 2, 1 C. 11. iS (perhaps 'from the very outset'), 

A. 28. 2 2 —epi. fiei' yap rv/9 aipe<re(jjs Tavnjs yvcücrror r/p-iv eanv k.t.X. 

so much we do indeed know'), E. 10. 1 >) pev evöo/aa k.t.X. ('so 
far as my wishes are concerned '), 11. 13 e'6' 00-or p.kv aSv apt kyi> WvCn- 
d—ocrroXos k.t.X., cp. Kühner 814. — In Jo. 7. 12 01 [th> is followed by 
aAAot (a. Se BTX) with the asyndeton of which this gospel is so 
fond 79, 4); in H. 12. 9 ov jtoAAw 8« (M e D* the other mss. omit 
is probablv the correct reading; we have instances of p.kv ... dAAa, 
ah ...TrX-qv (Kühn. 812 f.) in A. 4. 16, E. 14. 2c. 1 C. 14. 17: 
L. 22. 22 ; and a kindred use to this occurs in Mt. 17. 11 f. 'HAia? 
pkv ep\£Tai .... Aeyw ce, with which cp. Mc 9. 12 pkv ... (om. 
DLi. 13 aAAa..., where pkv means 'indeed,' 'certainly,' and ok (or 
aAAa) is an emphatic 'but.' — A<= introduces a parenthesis in A 12. 3 

vycrai' 6k al i)p.kpat t<Zv d^ipwv, cp. 1. 15 ?jv ok k.t.X. (re is wrongly 

read by fr*AB al. ): 4. 13 k-eyivwo-Kov ok (so D reads instead of re). 
It introduces an explantion or a climax ('but,' 'and indeed') in 
E. 3. 22 ZiKaioo-vvq ok deov, 9. 30. 1. C. 2. 6, Ph. 2. S. — We find kou ... 
Se in connection with each other in A. 2. 44, 3. 24 ko.1 -aY-es ce k.t.X.. 
•and also all,' 22. 29 koX 6 \1XLap\0s ok, Mt. 16. iS «coy« ok o-ol Acyt», 
•To. 8. 16 etc. (Tisch, on 6. 51), etc.: whereas 6k kcu means "but 
also,' A. 22. 2S etc. 

13. 'AXXd, besides its use in opposition to a preceding or- (with 
which must be classed ov p.6vov ... aAAa Kai 3 ), is also found with ov, 

1 Me? is not unfrequently interpolated in the inferior mss., Buttm. p. 313. 
Also in Clem. Cor. i. (62* 1 anacol.), Cor. ii., Barnabas ^i. 2 anacol.) and 
Hermas it is only rarely represented. 

2 Ov ... ä\\ä may also mean 'not so much.' Mc. 9. 37 o-'k e'.ue Se'xerat, 
-bv diroa-TeiXatrrä ixe, Mt. 10. 20, Jo. 12. 44, A. 5. 4 etc., the first member 
of the sentence being not entirely negatived, but only made subordinate. 

3 Oi> fiövov ... aXXd is used -without a col if the second member includes the 
first, A. 19. 26, 1 Jo. 5. 6, or as in Ph. 1. 12 d\\d toWijJ fiäWov k.t.\. 


in opposition to a foregoing positive sentence ('but not'): 1 C. 10. 
23 -kiIvto. e^eo-Tir, uAA' ov Trdvra avp.cpep€L, ibid. 5, Mt. 24. 6; it is 
further used where no negative precedes or follows it, as in 
1 C. 6. II Kttt rauTci Tti'es ^/Te, uA.Au u—£\ovcra<rde, uAAu y)yi,do~di)Te, 
where one can easily supply 'but you are so no longer' and 
render uAAu by 'on the contrary': 1 C. 3. 6 eyw ecpvreva-a, 'AttoAAws 
«totktcv, uAAu 6 (Jeus rjvgavev (but He Who gave the increase was 
not I nor he, but God), 7. 7, Jo. 16. 2. It stands at the beginning 
of the sentence with or without a negative : R. 10. 16 a A A' ov 
7ruvTes viryKova-av, where the difference is more strongly marked 
than it would be with 8e, 10. 18 f. üAAu. Aeyw..., 11. 4, 
1 C. 12. 24, 15. 35 ; similarly before commands or requests, 
A. 10. 20, 26. 16, Mt. 9. 18, Mc. 9. 22 etc. A similar meaning 
is expressed in Mt. and Lc. (not in Acts) by ttXtiv, 'yet,' 'how- 
beit' (in Acts and Mc. it is a preposition meaning 'except' as in 
class. Greek, § 40, 6 ; we also have 7rA?)v 6V1 [class.] 'except that' 
in A. 20. 23) : Mt. 26. 39 (L. 22. 43) ttXtjv oix ws eyw öeAw uAA' ws 
o~v, = Mc. 14. 36 dXX' ov\ k.t.A. ; Mt. 11. 22, 24, 26. 64 7rAi)v Aeyw 
vfuv, but in Mc. 9. 13 dXXa Aeyw vjj.iv (cp. Mt. 17. 12 Aeyw 8e v/iiv) ; 
Mt. 18. 7 irXyv oval k.t.A., = L. 17. I oval 8e (ttXi)v oval 81 nBDL) ; 
it even takes the place of an dXXd corresponding to a negative in 
L. 23. 28 fir) kAuictc €7t' e/xe, 7rA?)v e<fi' iavrds tcXaUre (dXX' I)); 12. 29, 
31 (I) fr]TUTe 8e) ; it is obvious that irX-qv was the regular word in 
the vulgar langnage. (In Paul it has rather the meaning of 'only,' l 
'in any case,' being used at the end of a discussion to emphasize the 
essential point, 1 C. 11. 11, E. 5. ß^, Ph. 3. 16, 4. 14; so also in 
Ap. 2. 25, and there is a parallel use (?) in Ph. 1. 18 ri yap; irk-qv 
(om. B) OT6 (om. DEKL) 7rui'Tt tooVw . . . Xpicrros KUTuyyeAAeTai, /cai 
€i' Tovrcp x at P w > where rl ydp appears to mean as in R. 3. 3 "' what 
matters it 1 ', and irXrjv, with or without ort, seems to denote ' at all 
events,' and is moreover superfluous.) — 'AXXd is used after an oratori- 
cal question as in class. Greek, in Jo. 1 2. 2 7 ri e«ra) ; ndrep, o-wo-oV 
/ze ... ; uAAu 8td tovto ijXOov k.t.A. (there are simpler sentences in 
7. 49, 1 C. 10. 20); or in a succession of questions (the answer being 
either given in each case or suppressed), Mt. 11. 8 f =L. 7. 24 ff. 
Tt efyjXdare . . . ; ... uAAu Tt i^ijXdare ; k.t.A. (class.). A peculiar 
instance is H. 3. 16 TiVes yap uKoixrai'Tes TrapejrtKpavav ; dAA' ov 
7rui'T€s ol Z^eXdovTts e£ KlyviTTov ... ; where however the dAA' (cp. the 
Syriac VS.) may have only originated from a misunderstanding of the 
preceding TiVes as if it were Ttv«. 2 — 'AXXd is used in the apodosis after 
el. luV, et7rep, meaning 'still,' 'at least' (class.): 1 C. 4. 15 lav fivplovs 
7rai8aywyous ^XV T€ * v Xptory, «A A' ov 7roAAovs irarkpas, 2 C. 4. 1 6, 
11. 6, (13. 4 v.l.), Col. 2. 5 etc. ; cp. dXXd -ye eip.1 1 C. 9. 2 (supra 
4). — Besides its use in this passage dXXdY« kui ... is found in L. 24. 
21 (vide ibid.), introducing an accessory idea in an emphatic way, 

1 Cp. Aristotle's use, Bonitz Index Arist. s.v. ttXtjv. 

a The use is different in L. 17-7 f. ri's ... (pet avrip ... d\X' oi'x« fpe' avrw ... ; 
'and not rather.' D here omits oi'-x', according to which the second half of 
the sentence is not interrogative. 

§ 77- 13-14.] PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS). 269 

cp. dXXd. Kal ibid. 22, 12. 7, 16. 21, 'not only this, but also,' as in 

Ph. 1. 18 \alp<M, dAAd Kal yapy)o-op.aL, 2 C. 11. I 6'</>eAov dvei\eo-6e ... , 

dAAd kcu ttvex«r#e (not only will I utter the wish, but I entreat you 
directly); to this corresponds dXX' ovSe' in 1 C. 3. 2 otVw yap eSvvao-de. 
dAA' ovSe eVi vvv SvvaaOe, A. 19. 2, L. 23. 15. The simple äAAa also 
has this force of introducing an accessory idea, in 2 C. 7. 11 iroo-qv Karrjpyda-aro tnrovSijv, dAAd ('and not only that, but also') 
d7roAoytav, dAAd dyav6.KTi]criv, äAAd <£d/3ov k.t.A. (dAAd 6 times re- 
peated). We further have dAAd p.evovv ye (without ye in BDF al.) Kai 
(om. «*) -qyovjiai Ph. 3. 8, cp. inf. 14. — Notice must be taken of the 
elliptical dXX' I'va 'on the contrary (but) this has happened (or a 
similar phrase) in order that,' Mc. 14. 49, Jo. 1. 8, 9. 3, 13. 18, 
15. 25 ; but this must be distinguished from Mc. 4. 22 ov ydp «rnv 
Tt Kpvirrbv, edv py Iva <pavepw6y ov8e eyevero onroKpv(f>ov, dXX' tva eX6i] 
els cf>avepov, where dAA' = et p.}) ' save that,' and from the use of dAA 
(i.e. dAAo) rj in L. 12. 51 ov^i, Aeyw, dAA' ?'} (D dAAd) 8iapepLap.6v, 
'nothing else but' (classical, Kühner ii. 2 824, 5 and 6, 825 note 4), 
cp. 2 C. 1. 13 ov yap dAAa ... dAA' (dAA' om. BFG) 1} (om. A) d (om. 
AD*) dvayivwo-Ktre 1 (dAA' ?} is an interpolation in 1 C. 3. 5), Clem. 
Cor. i. 41. 2. 

14. Other adversative particles are ue'v-roi 'however,' ot'(Seis) p.evroi 
Jo. 4. 27, 7. 13, 20. 5, 21. 4 (Herrn. Sim. vi. 1. 6), Öucos |«'vtoi 12. 42; 
this particle occurs very rarely except in John, viz. ö p.'evroi 6ep.eXt.os 
2 Tim. 2. 19, Ja. 2. 8, Jd. 8 (in the two last passages with a weaker 
meaning = 'but.'). "Ouws apart from the instance quoted occurs only 
again in 1 C. 14. 7, G. 3. 15, where it is used in a peculiar way: 
ö/iws tu dxpvya <f)0)vi)v SiSovra ..., edv cuacrToA?}v (faOoyyov p.t] Sep, ttws 
yvuio-drjo-eTai k.t.A., and ö dvßpcüirov KeKVpwp.ev7]V Siaßi'jKijv ovSels 
dOeret ; the latter passage is explained (Fritzsche) as a substitution 
for Kai7rep dvOp., o/xios oi'Seis d6. ' if it be only a man's will, yet,' some- 
what like Xenoph. Cyrop. V. 1. 26 o-vv croi opaus Kal ev ttj Tro\ep.ia 
ovres 6appovp.ev, Kühner p. 645; but as in both passages a comparison 
is introduced by it, and as ovrm also follows in the passage of 1 Cor., 
it appears to be rather an instance of the old word 6p,ws 'in like 
manner ' being brought into play, which should accordingly be 
rendered simply by 'also' or 'likewise.' 2 — Kcutoi in classical Greek 
means 'and yet,' and rarely takes a participle with the meaning 
' although,' cp. § 74, 2 ; in the N.T. it introduces a parenthesis in 
Jo. 4. 2 KatToiye (§ 77, 4) 'Ir/a-ovs avrbs ovk eßdirri^ev k.t.A. ( = 'although 
He did not baptize'), and has a more independent character in A. 
14. 17, though here also it may be rendered ' although ' (on A. 17. 27 
see § 74, 2 ; for KaiVoi with a participle H. 4. 3). — Kal |a^v 'and yet' 
(class.) does not occur in the N.T. ; but Hermas uses it in Mand. iv. 1. 

1 "AXX' is rendered pleonastic by a preceding aXXos, but the use is nevertheless 
not unclassical, Kühner 824, 6. 

2 Clem. Horn. i. 15 ( = Epitom. 14) has Kal 6/xuis tjxaöov koX t£ ttvXQvi iiriffTiqv, = 
ä/xet, 'at the same time' ; xix. 23 Kal d/xQs TOLaurd riva /nvpia k.t.\., = Kal ößoiios. 
(In 1 C. I.e. the accentuation 6/xds is supported by Wilke Neut. Rhetorik 
p. 225.) 

2 yo PARTICLES (CONTINUED). [§77. 14. §78. 1. 

8, v. 1. 7, with an intensifying force in an answer, somewhat like 
immo (class., Kühner ii. 2 690. — M*v ovv in classical Greek is specially 
used in answers with heightening or corrective force, and is always 
so placed that the luv here as in other cases has another word before 
it ; but in the N.T. p.evovv or p,evovvye with the same meaning stands 
at the beginning of a sentence: L. 11. 28 /xevouv (ins. ye B :i CD al.) 
fxaKapioi oi k.t.A. ('rather'), R. 9. 20 (ye is omitted by B only), 10. 18 
p,evovvye (pevovvye om. FG) ; we also find üAAa. pevovv(ye) in Ph. 3. 8, 
vide supra 13. Cp. Phryn. Lob. 342. But the classical position of 
the word is seen in 1 C. G. 4 /Sicotiko, llIv ovv K-pm/pia k.t.A., cp. 7 
(ofiv om. «*D*). 

§ 78. PARTICLES (continued). 

1. The comparative particles which are followed by a subordinate 
clause are «s and üSo-n-ep, also frequently in nearly all writers Ka9i6s, a 
Hellenistic word, see Phrynicus p. 425 Lob., who strongly disapproves 
of it and requires instead Ka0d (only in Mt. 27. 10 O.T. and L. 1. 2 
according to D and Euseb., certainly the right reading, see p. 49 on 
TrapeSoo-av) or ko.6ö (which is found in R. 8. 26, 2 C. 8. 12, 1 P. 4. 13); 
the equally Attic form Kaöd-irep occurs only in Paul and Hebrews. 
The uses of ws are manifold, and some of them, as being too well 
known and commonplace, need not be discussed at all in this 
grammar. The correlative terms are «is (cocnrep, Kaöws, Kaddirep) 
- oütws or oütws Kal; or the term corresponding to ws may be simply 
Kai., as in Mt. 6. 10, or again koI may be attached to ws and may 
even stand in both portions of the comparison, as in R. 1. 13 ivct nvi 
Kapiruv (rx<Ä) Kal ev vfitv, kuOios Kal ev rots Aoi7rois edvecrLv, Mt. 18. ^^ 
etc. (as in class. Greek, Kühner p. 799, 2). — When used to introduce 
a sentence ws and more particularly koiOws may also to some extent 
denote a reason : R. 1. 28 Ka#ws ovk eSoKiLiacrav tov debv e\eLv ev 
«riyvojo-ei, TrapeSioKev clvtovs 6 debs k.t.A. ('even as ' = ' since,' quando- 
quiclem), 1 C. 1. 6, 5. 7, E. 1. 4, Ph. 1. 7 (Mt. 6. 12 ws Kal i)pels 
dcprjKdLiev, =L. 11. 4 Kai yap avrol d<f)iop.ev), cp. ws with a partic. 
§ 74, G. — A parable is introduced by w? in Mc. 13. 34, by loo--ep yap 
(yap om. D) in 25. 14, though no corresponding term follows, and 
there is also no close connection with the preceding words, cp. 81, 2. 
— Before ideas the place of ws is taken by üa-tC (especially in the 
Gospels and Acts, also in Herrn. Sim. vi. 2. 5, ix. 11. 5), with much 
variety of reading in the MSS.; this particle is also used before 
numerical ideas = 'about,' Mt. 14. 21 (D ws), Jo. 4. 6 (cos has prepon- 
derant evidence) etc. (classical) ; tbo-irep^ (in comparisons) only occurs 
in 1 C. 15. 8 (cöcnrep D*) and as a v.l. in 4. 13 ; wcrav (w$ av) only in 
2 C. 10. 9 uo-dv ('as it were') eK^oßelv, cp. § 70, 5. A very wide use 
is made of o>s in connection with a predicate, whether in the nomina- 
tive, Mt. 22. 30 cos dyyeAoi Oeov elcnv, 18. 3 lav uv) yevt]cr6e cos to, 
TratSia, 1 C 7. 7 lav peivuKnv J>s Kuyw, or in the accusative, L. 15. 19 
Troirjo-ov pe cos eva tcov purOluiv crov, especially with the verbs 
Xoyi^o-dai, i)ye.lcrdai etc., § 34, 5 (all unclassical uses ; but in the 
LXX. we have in Gen. 3. 5 eo-eo-Oe cos 6eo<', = class. lo-odeoi, or i'o-a Kal 

§78-1-2.] PARTICLES {CONTINUED). 2 yi 

Beoi according to Thuc. iii. 14, cp. [|j 76, 1] elvat 1'0-a (9ew Ph. 2. 6). 
With t?)v to-r/v tos «at ^/ziv A. 11. 17 cp. classical exx. in Kühner 361, 
note 18. Uop€V€crdaL J)S (eios «ABE) eVt tv)v oaAacrcrav A. 17. 14 is a 
Hellenistic usage, u>s eVi = versus in Polyb. i. 29. 1 etc., see Wetstein 
ad loa; a>s rdxta-ra ibid. 15 is classical (literary language; § 44, 3). 
On ws with a partic. and in abbreviated sentences see § 74, 6. On 
exclamatory o>s § 76, 3; ws (ws ort) in assertions § 70, 2; on temporal 
cos infra 3 ; with an infinitive § 69, 3. 

2. The hypothetical particles are cl and Idv, see § 65, 4 and 5 ; 
Paul (and 1 Pet. 2. 3, but «*AB read et) also uses ei'ircp 'if on the 
other hand,' R. 3. 30 (v.l. eVeiVe/)), 8. 9, 17, 2 Th. 1. 6, referring to 
an alternative condition (or fact) ; edvirep is similarly used in H. 3 (6 
v.l.) 14, 6. 3 ; but the particle is differently used in 1 C. 8. 5 ko.1 yap 
ehep elcrlv Xeyopevot deol ..., dAA' ets o 8e6s, where it has a con- 
cessive sense, ' however true it may be that,' as in Homer (Kühner 
991, note 2) 1 . Ei'76 is similarly used, but makes a more definite 
assumption (G. Hermann), § 77, 4. The correlative terms in use are 
«iT€...etT€ (eav re ... eav tc R. 14. 8 twice), only found in Paul and 
1 Peter, either with a finite verb, as in 1 C. 10. 31 etVe ovv ia-ßiere 

ehe TTlV€Te ehe Tl 7TOietT€, "KaVTa CIS 86£aV 0€OV 7TOteiT£, ' whether it be 

that ... or that,' or still more frequently without a verb by abbrevia- 
tion (classical, Kühner 839), ibid. 3. 21 f. irävra yap vpwv iartv, ehe 
IlauAos ehe 'A7roAAws ehe K-^as, where perhaps no definite verb can 
be supplied, but the meaning is 'whether one mentions,' 'whether it 
be,' 'whether one is concerned with' 2 ; similarly 13. 8 ehe 8e ivpo- 
<^t]Teiai, KarapyijdijcrovTai, ehe yAwcrcrai, iravcrovrai, ehe k.t. A., and 
R. 12. 6 ff. e\ovTe<; 8e yaplcrpaTa ... ehe TTpo^iTetav (sc. e^ovres), Kara. 
TYjv..., ehe SuaKoviav, ev ..., ehe b 8i8d<rKwv, ev ttj StSacrKakia' ehe 6 
-apaKaXwv, ev k.t.X. The meaning of ehe... ehe in such passages 
approximates very closely to that of Kal . . . kuI, and the construction 
is also of the same character as that with Kai ; the passage R. 12. 7 
like other cases of enumeration (R. 2. 17-20 ; § 79, 3) concludes with 
an asyndeton, 6 peraSiSovs ev ä-n-Xor^Ti k.t.X. — Further correlative 
terms are cl |acv.. . cl 8c, as in A. 18. 14 f.; here we may note the 
thoroughly classical suppression of the first apodosis in L. 13. 9 ko.v 
p.ev TOiijcry Kapirov (sc. it is well)' el 8e p-^ye, eKKoxpets avrrjv (cp. 
Kühner 986). On el 8e p.r), el 81 pope (the second protasis being 
abbreviated) see § 77, 4; on el (eav) prj (ti) 'except,' 'except that' 
see §§ 35, 6 : 75, 3. In imitation of Hebrew a is used after formulas 
of swearing ( = Hebr. Dtf) : Mc. 8. 12 dpi]v Xeyw, et ('there shall 
not') 8odi']creTai rrj yevea TavTij cnjpelov (cp. Mt. 16. 4 a principal sen- 

1 We also have 1 C. 15. 15 ö* 7 ( T bv Xp.) ovk tfyeipev, etirep dpa veKpol ovk eyetpovrai, 
but the clause eiVep ... eyeip. is absent (through homoeoteleuton ? cp. 16) in DE 
and other witnesses ; the sense can perfectly well dispense with it, and is 
better without it ; moreover the classical use of dpa ('as they say ') is remark- 
able. Here also eiVep means ' if on the other hand ' (as they say). 

2 For this in 2 C. 8. 23 we have eire iircp Tltov, Kotvwvbs e/ubs k.t.X., but here 
again the sentence continues in the nominative, etre &5e\<pol ri/xQiv, o\irbo-To\oi 

272 PARTICLES (CONTINUED). [§ 78. 2-5. 

tence with ot'), H. 3. 1 1 = 4. 3 O.T. — On concessive et Kai, eav kuI 
etc. see § 65, 6 ; on ei in indirect and direct questions, and its use 
to express expectation (also expressed by et 71-cos, si forte) see §§ 65, 1 
and 6 ; 77, 2. 

3. The temporal particles, used to denote time when, are gt€, orav, 
07TOTC (eVeiovj is generally causal, as is eVei8?/7rep ; eiretSrj in temporal 
sense only occurs in L. 7. 1 with vv.ll. «ret, ore), and exceptionally 
in Paul iji'iKa (a literary word, but also found in LXX. e.g. Exod. 1. 10, 
Deut. 7. 12) 2 C. 3. 15 f. from lxx. Exod. 34. 34 (a particle which 
strictly refers to a period of an hour or a year, but is already in 
Attic used interchangeably with ore). Another equally rare word is 
o7roTe, if it is correctly read in L. 6. 3 ottotc (ore nBCDL al., as in 
Mt., Mc.) eVetVao-ei'. In addition to these we find us not unfrequently 
used in the narrative of Luke (Gospel and Acts) and John : L. 1. 23 
cos kirXi'j(rdi](rav at vpxepat, Jo. 2. 9 cos 81 eyei'craTO 6 dpY/TptKAtvos k.t.X. 
(classical ; LXX. especially 1 Mace, Win. -Grimm) ; in Paul we have 
R. 15. 24 ws av et's rqv "Snraviav 'in my approaching journey 
to Spain,' 1 C. 11. 34 cos ä\> e\du> 'when I come (shall come),' Ph. 2. 23 
cos av dc^t'Sw — a use of ws ai> which finds only distant parallels in 
classical Greek 1 ; it takes the pres. indie, in G. 6. 10 cos /catpov k\op.ev 
(male -<opev kB*) cum, ' now while ' (Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 1, 9. 7), and in 
L. 12. 58 cos yap vTrdyets ... eV' apyovra, Iv tq 68w (Mt. 5. 25 is differ- 
ently expressed, using ecos ötov ; in Lc. «os iVayets would be tauto- 
logical beside iv rfi 68u>). — Time during which is expressed, as in 
classical Greek, by etos (with a present), Jo. 9. 4 «os t'jfiepa e'errtv, cp. 
12. 35 f., where in 35 ABD al., and in 36 the same MSS. with N, read 
cos, which after the instances of cos that have been quoted is not 
impossible, though the meaning ' as long as ' appears more correct at 
least in verse 35 s ; see also Mc. 6. 45, Jo. 21. 22, 1 Tim. 4. 13-, § 65, 
10. Elsewhere for 'as long as' we have ecos örov Mt. 5. 25 (as ecos 
has become a preposition, § 40, 6), or üyjois ov H. 3. 13, A. 27. ^^, or 
ev co Mc. 2. 19, L. 5. 34, Jo. 5. 7. The same expressions together 
with ecos ov, a-xpi, p^xpt, pexP 6 °^ when used with the aor. conj. (or 
fut. indie.) mean 'until,' § 65, 9 and 10. — 'Before' is -n-piV, irpiv rj, 
usually with an infinitive ; also 7rpo tov with an infin., ibid. 

4. For the final particles i'va, ftn-ws, jxtj see § 65, 2 ; on the extended 
use of tW, § 69 ; on p?/, p?pTcos, pi'/irore after <poßelo-dai etc. § 65, 3. — 
For assertions with On (cos, cos 6Vt, 71-cos), § 70 ; for indirect questions 
with et (jrÖTepov ... 1) Jo. 7. 17), § 77, 2. 

5. The consecutive subordinating particles are coo-re, see § 69, 3, and 
tW, ibid. — With a co-ordinate construction ofiv is particularly fre- 
quent, being one of the commonest of the particles in the N.T., and 
fairly represented in all writings, though a far larger use is made of 

1 Hdt. iv. 172 twv 5f ws ckclcttös ol M'X0?7> 5i5o? duipov. But the lxx. has the 
same use, e.g. in Jos. 2. 14 ; also Herrn. Vis. iii. 8. 9. 

2 In modern Greek uis (from ecos) also means 'until'; but in the N.T. the two 
words are not elsewhere confused (ükrre with an inf. = 'until' in 'Jo.' 8. 9 D?), 
and we should therefore perhaps write with K in verse 35 e'ws 'as long as,' and 
in verse 36 ws quando ' now when. ' 

§ 78. 5.] PARTICLES {CONTINUED). 273 

it in narrative than in epistolary style, and the greatest of all in 
John's Gospel (whereas in the Johannine Epistles it only occurs in 
3 Jo. 8 [being interpolated in 1 Jo. 2. 24, 4. 19]). Of course it does 
not always imply a strictly causal connection, but may be used in a 
looser way of a temporal connection, and therefore to resume or con- 
tinue the narrative. Luke is accustomed in the Acts, if the narrative 
sentence begins with a noun or pronoun (or a participle with the 
article), to emphasize the ovv by the addition of pev, which need not 
be succeeded by a contrasted clause with 8e : 1. 6 o! pev ovv 
crweAöovres k.t.X., 18 ovtos pev ovv k.t.A., 2. 41 oi pev ovv UTroSe^d/xevoi, 
9. 31 al fj-ev ovv €KKXr]oriai etc.; this combination of particles is used 
sometimes to state what further took place, sometimes to summarize 
the events which have been previously narrated, before passing on 
to something new (cp. for the class, use Kühner 711); the same use 
occurs in Luke's Gospel 3. 18 — oAAä p,ev ovv koX erepa irapaK.a\£)v 
€in]yye\i£eTo rbv Aadv (the only instance of pev ovv in that Gospel). 
The simple ovv is used after a participle in A. 10. 23 (15. 2 v.l.), 16. 

11, 25. 17 (cp. 26. 22 etc.); in Luke's Gospel only in 23. 16 = 22; 
D has it also in 5. 7. Ovv is used after parenthetical remarks to 
indicate a recurrence to the original subject in Jo. 4. 45, 6. 24, 1 C. 
8. 4, 11. 20 (also classical, but the classical Se ovv to indicate this 
recurrence is unrepresented). The interrogative oükoüv ' therefore,' 
'then' (Kühner 715 f.) occurs only in Jo. 18. 37 ovkovv ßacrtAevs d 
crv; On plv ovv, fievovv see § 77. 14. — Another consecutive particle is 
dpa ' therefore,' ' consequently,' especially frequent in Paul, who 
sometimes makes it, as in classical Greek, the second word in the 
sentence, R. 7. 21 evpio-KO) dpa, sometimes contrary to classical usage 
the first, as in R. 10. 17 apa (FG a. ovv) -i] irio-TL<i eg aKorjs, 1 C. 15. 18, 
2 C. 7. 1 2 etc. (H. 4. 9) ; we also find the strengthened form apa oSv 
R. 5. 18, 7. 3, 25, 8. 12, 9. 16, 18 etc., G. 6. 10, E. 2. 19 (om. ovv 
FG), 1 Th. 5. 6, 2 Th. 2. 15. It is strengthened by ye and given 
the first position in the sentence in Mt. 7. 20, 17. 26, A. 11. 18 
EHLP, where other MSS. have äpa as in L. 11. 48 (for which Mt. 23. 
31 uses wo-re with indie). Also in an apodosis after a protasis with 
et, the simple apa is always used and is always the first word : Mt. 

12. 28 = L. 11. 20, 2 C. 5. 14 according to N C C* al. (most MSS. omit 
et, but it would easily be dropped before eis), G. 2. 21 (ibid. 18 inter- 
rogatively, therefore äpa § 77, 2), 3. 25, H. 12. 8. On eVet äpa in 
Paul cp. inf. 6 ; on apa, äpa in interrogative sentences § 77, 2. — 
Another quite rare particle is roi-yapovv (classical), 1 Th. 4. 8, H. 12. 1, 
placed at the beginning of a sentence ; and toIwv is not much 
commoner, standing as the second word (as in class. Greek) in 
L. 20. 25 ACP al., as the first word (unclassical 1 ) in nBL, and omitted 
in D (as it is in Mc. 12. 17 ; Mt. 22. 21 has ow); as second word 
also in 1 C. 9. 26 (in Ja. 2. 24 it is spurious), as first word in H. 13. 13 
(Clem. Cor. i. 15. 1). — Another particle of kindred meaning is 8Vj, 
which is found (though rarely) according to classical usage in sen- 
tences containing a request, 1 C. 6. 20 So^äo-are 5?) ('therefore') tov 

1 But found in other late writers, see Lob. Phryn. 342. 

274 PARTICLES {CONTINUED). [§ 78. 5-6. 

ßebv k.t.A. (but «* and some Latin witnesses omit &j and present an 
asyndeton) ; in L. 2. 15, A. 13. 2, 15. 36 at the beginning of a speech 
('come now'); a cpiite different and thoroughly classical use of it 
occurs in Mt. 13. 23 os 6V7 Kapncxpopd 'who is just the man who ' (for 
us Brj D has tot€, the Vulgate and others et). — Lastly we have the 
consecutive particle 8u5, i.e. 6Y o, and therefore strictly used to intro- 
duce a subordinate relative sentence, but its subordinating character 
is forgotten, Mt. 27. 8, L. 1. 35 (A* wrongly has Sioti, which is often 
confused with 816) : in the latter passage we have the combination, 
also a favourite one in classical Greek, 1 8tb kolI, and the corresponding 
81b ov8e in 7. '7 ; it is frequent in the Acts and Epistles ; we also have 
8idirep 1 C. 8. 1 3, 10. 14 (in 14. 13 most mss. read 8lo). "O0€v is 
similarly used in Mt. 14. 7, A. 2G. 19, and often in Hebrews, e.g. 
2. 17, 3. 1, denoting a reason like our 'hence.' 2 

6. The principal causal subordinating particle is On ' because,' for 
which Luke and Paul (H., Ja., IP.) also use Sion (classical). But 
the subordination both with ön and 8l6tl is often a very loose one (cp. 
816, odev, supra 5), so that it must be translated 'for': 1 C. 1. 25 ori 

TO [Ah>pbv TOV 9eOV OrO(J3iOT£pOV TU>|/ dv8p(OTT(OV eCTTlV K.T.A., 4. 9, 10. 1 7 

2 C 4. 6, 7. 8, 14, with 8i6ti P. 1. 19, 21, 3. 20, 8. 7 (on FG) etc. 
A similar use is made of «m, which in the N.T. is regulary a causal 
particle : P. 3. 6 eirel (' for ') 7rws Kpivzi 6 6eus tov Koo-pov, where as in 
other passages it has the additional meaning of ' if otherwise ' 
(classical, Xenoph. Cyr. ii. 2. 31 etc.), which it has in assertions in 
R. 11. 6 £7rei ?/ X a P ts ovkcti yiverai, ^apts, 22 €7T€6 kcu crv ii<KOTnjo~y: 
E-rreiSTj, which is likewise a causal particle (supra 3), has not this 
additional meaning, though like ort it implies a loose subordination : 
1 C. 14. 16 (B e-rrel), 1. 22 (FG 67ret). 'Em-iSTprep occurs only in 
L. 1. 1 'inasmuch as already,' referring to a fact already well known, 
cp. e'bTrep supra 2. — On €</>' <5 cp. supra § 43, 3; on Kaöws supra 1. 
KaGoTi (only in Luke) strictly means ' according as,' ' just as,' and is 
so used in A. 2. 45, 4. 35 ; but in Hellenistic Greek it passes over to 
the meaning of Sion : L. 1. 7 KaOort, fy 17 'EXuraßer o-Telpa, 19. 9, 
A. 17. 31 (Sid™ HLP). — The co-ordinating particle is -ydp, one of the 
commonest of the particles (least often, in comparison with the rest 
of the N.T., in John, especially in his Epistles; there are also not 
many instances of it in the Apocalypse). Its usages agree with the 
classical usages ; it is also frequently found in questions, where, we 
use ' then,' Mt. 27. 23 ri yap kclkov iTroLrjo-tv ; ' what evil then has he 
done V, A. 8. 31 7rws yap av 8waip.-qv ; giving the reason for a denial 
or refusal which is left unexpressed, or for a reproach (whether 
expressed or not) as in Mt. 9. 5 ri yap eo-nv evKo-n-ioTepov k.t.A., 23. 17 
pwpol kcu Tvcf>\o[, Tt's .yäp k.t.A.., A. 19. 35 etc., unless it should be 
rendered literally by ' for who,' as in L. 22. 27. In answers it corrobo- 
rates a statement about which a question has been raised (Kühner 
ii. 724), 'yes in truth,' 'indeed,' as in 1 C. 9. 10 ?'} St' t}/ ttcivtws 

1 E.g. in Aristotle's 'A.6r)vaLwv 7ro\ireta. 
2 Aristot. 'Ad. 7ro\. 3. 2 etc. 

§ 78- 6-7. § 79- 1] PARTICLES {CONTINUED). 2 y$ 

Aeyet ; (an oratorical question) 6V ypas yap iypd<pr], 1 Th. 2. 20 (and 
it is similarly used where a statement is repeated, R. 15. 26 f. 

•>]v86i<r)crav yap rjvSoKr^crav yap, Kal k.t.X.); there is a somewhat 

different use after an indignant question in A. 1 6. 37 of ov yap, non pro- 
j'ecto (classical ; see the author's note on the passage), and a different 
use again in Jo. 9. 30 in the retort of the man born blind, eV tovtu> yap 
(ovv D) to davp,ao-Tov icniv, on k.t.X., which is equivalent to an inter- 
rogative (vide supra) ov yap ev tovtio k.t.X. — Kal -yap is 'for also,' so 
that there is no closer connection between the two particles ( = eVaS^ 
Kal) ; the well-known use of Kal yap for etenim (Kühner 855), where 
Kai quite loses its force, is sometimes traced in passages like 1 C. 5. 7, 
11. 9, 12. 13 (where ovtws Kal 6 Xp. precedes); but in reality Kal 
keeps its meaning of ' also ' in these places, though it refers not to a 
single idea, but to the whole sentence. 1 (There is however an instance 
of the classical Kal yap in L. 22. 37 [D omits yap], cp. Jo. 12. 39 D 
Kal yap instead of on.) Ov8l yap is similarly used in R. 8. 7 (but in 
Jo. 8. 42, where D reads ov yap, it rather = neque enim, corresponding 
to a positive etenim). In re yap R. 7. 7 tc has nothing whatever to 
do with yap : if re and yap are genuine (re is omitted by FG and 
the Latin MSS.), one must suppose it to be an instance of anacoluthon. 

7. The concessive subordinating particles are A Kal, «dv Kal, § 65, 6; 
also k&v meaning 'even if,' Mt. 21. 21, 26. 35, Jo. 8. 14, 10. 38; on 
the other hand Kal el is only found, where the reading is certain, in 
the sense of 'and if' (Mc. 14. 27 el Kal nBC al., koI edv or ko.v D, Kai 
el A al.; 2 C. 13. 4 Kal yap el N C A al., which is more correct than Kai 
yap without el as read by N*BD*F al. ; Origen reads el yap Kal, see 
Tisch.). On KaiVep, Kaii-oi with a participle, and KalToi(ye) with a 
finite verb see § 74, 2. Kalroi takes alternately a hypotactical or a 
paratactical construction, vide ibid., as it alternately has an adversa- 
tive or a concessive meaning, § 77, 14. — On the use of tfn«s corre- 
sponding to classical KatVep vide ibid. 


1. We find the methods of connecting sentences in Greek already 
divided in Aristotle's terminology 2 into two opposite classes, namely 
the continuous or running style (dpo\i.ivr\) and the compact (Ka-r«- 
o-Tpajj.|xt'vT]) or periodic style (kv 7repioöois). In the latter the whole 
discourse is subdivided into units consisting of coherent and well- 
balanced members ; in the former the subsequent section is always 
loosely appended to the section preceding it, and there is never a 
definite conclusion within view of the reader. The periodic style is 
characteristic of artistically developed prose, the continuous style is 
that which we find in the oldest, and still quite unsophisticated, 
prose, and on the whole is that which characterizes the N.T. narrative, 

1 On 2 C. 13. 4 vide inf. 7. The classical use also appears in Herrn. Sim. ix. 
8. 2 Kal yap (etenim) Kal ('also') ofrra k.t.X. 
2 Arist. Rhet. iii. 9. 


agreeing as it does with the manner of the Semitic models on which 
that narrative is based. To the idea which is given the first place and 
which is complete in itself there is appended a second and similar idea, 
the connecting link being in most cases kcu = Hebrew \ then follows 
a third, and so on in an unending series : this tedious character of 
uniformity is an especially noticeable feature of the narrative of 
Mark, but is also not wanting in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and 
John. Another class of continuous style is that where the opening 
sentence is developed by appending to it a participle, or a clause 
introduced by on, or a relative sentence, or in some similar way, 
since in this case also there is no end or termination in view ; this 
manner of writing, which is freely employed by Paul in large portions 
of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, is indeed still more 
tedious and presents still greater obscurity than the simple linking 
together of sentences by means of kcu. 

2. Besides the connection of clauses by means of a conjunction, a 
relative, a subordinate participle etc., there is further the uncon- 
nected or paratactical construction (known as asyndeton); this is on 
the whole repugnant to the spirit of the Greek language, both with 
regard to sentences and the members which compose them, as also 
with regard to parallel portions of a single clause, and accordingly 
in the N.T. also is only used to a limited extent. Those sentences 
are not to be regarded as strict cases of asyndeton, where the new 
sentence begins with a demonstrative pronoun or a demonstrative 
adverb, referring back to something which has preceded: A. 16. 3 
tovtov (Timothy) r/deXy^ev 6 HaiSAos crvv aww e^eAöeiv, Jo. 5. 6 
tovtov l8ojv k.t.A. (ibid. 21. 21 AX al., but «BCD have tovtov ovv), 
the person having been previously introduced and described ; a quite 
parallel instance may be quoted e.g. from Demosth. 21. 58 2awiiov 
ecTTtv 8S]ttov Tis...' ovtos atrTpareias rjAcu... - tovtov [xera k.t.A. An 
unclassical use, on the other hand, is that of totc as a connecting 
particle, which is particularly characteristic of Matthew, though also 
occurring in Luke (esp. in the Acts), to introduce something which 
was subsequent in point of time, not something which happened at a 
definite point of time: Mt. 2. 7 Tore 'HpwS^s k.t.A., 16, 17, 3. 5, 13, 15, 
4. 1, 5, 10, 11 etc., L. 14. 21 (D kcu), 21. 10 totc e'Aeyev cujtois (om. D), 
24. 45, A. 1. 12, 4. 8 etc. (esp. frequent in D, e.g. 2. 14, 37); John uses 
the combination totc ovv, 11. 14 (ovv om. A), 19. 1, 16, 20. 8, totc in 
that case having a fuller meaning ' at this time ' (as opposed to pre- 
vious time). Other circumstantial formulas with similar meaning, 
which can hardly be interpreted in their literal sense, are : Mt. 11. 25, 
12. 1 ev eK€iv<j) no Kcupto (14. 1, where D has ev en. 81), iv iKtivy rrj 
<0>pa Mt. 18. 7 (ev Ik. 81 BM), Iv €Keivcus (8e add. D) tcus rjpipais Mc. 
8. 1 (iv 81 Tats tj/J,. Ik. Mt. 3. I, but DE al. om. 8e) ; ev avrrj (Se add. 
D) ttj wpa L. 10. 21 (7. 21 v.l. Iv £K€tvj7 t. <j. ; with 81 AD al.). 'A71-0 
tot« may also be noticed in Mt. 4. 17 (with yap in D), 16. 21, L. 16. 
16 (kcu d. t. Mt. 26. 16). Mcto. TovTo (ravra) without a conjunction 
occurs in John's Gospel, 2. 12, 3. 22, 5. 1, 14, 6. 1 etc. (in 19. 38 p-era. 
84 t., but 8e is omitted by EGK al.), and the Apocalypse (4. 1, 7. 9, 


18. 1, 19. 1, 20. 3, with kgu 7. 1 \koX om. AC], 15. 5); see also A. 

1 8. 1 according to «AB (v.l. fiera. Se TavTa), and the reading of nearly 
all Greek mss. in L. 10. 1, 18. 4. — In the case of frreiTa and dra. 
Attic Greek is not fond of inserting a 8e (Krüger Gr. § 69, 24), and 
the N.T. usage is the same, L. 16. 7, Jo. 11. 7, Mc. 4. 17 etc. (Ja. 4. 14 
«r. kcu nABK, eV. Se Kai only LP). The N.T. also uses tm without 
a conjunction: L. 8. 49 ert avrov AaAoiWos, A. 10. 44, Mt. 12. 46 
(with Se CE al.), cp. 26. 47 (where Latin MSS. omit the conj., and 
there are var. lect. kcu ert and 'in Se). 

3. Asyndeton between individual words or ideas is quite a natural 
occurrence for the sake of convenience in lengthy enumerations, but 
here there is a tendency at any rate to connect the words in pairs to 
avoid ambiguity, see § 77, 9, until at last even this becomes tedious 
to the writer, 1 Tim. 1. 9, 10 ; still, if the ideas are not strictly summed 
up, but merely enumerated, the use of asyndeton may be an actual 
necessity. Thus we have in 1 P. 4. 3 TreTropev/xevovs iv do-eAyeiais, 

fVtöl'yUiatS, 06l'0(£Al>ytGUS, KWfJLOtS, 7TOTOIS KOU äßtfJLLTOLS €lScüAoAaT/3l'aiS 

(with the last word the adjective necessitates the insertion of kcu) ; 
the use of kcu in this passage would lay too great a charge against 
individual persons. 2 Tim. 3. 2 eo-ovTcu ol avOpwiroi tplXavTot, (piXdp- 
yvpoi, dAa^oves, vireprjcfaavoi, ßXdcr^rjpioL k.t.A. (but the same men do 
not possess all these faults). If the particle is used in enumerations 
of this kind, the construction is known as polysyndeton, a figure of 
speech which may be used just as well as asyndeton for a rhetorical 
purpose, only in a different way : polysyndeton by evidently summing 
up the different ideas produces an impression of greatness and fulness, 
asyndeton, by breaking up the separate ideas and introducing them one 
after the other in a jerky manner, gives an impression of vivacity and 
excitement. Still neither asyndeton nor polysyndeton is used with 
a rhetorical effect in every case where they occur: L. 18. 29 ( = Mt. 

19. 29, Mc. 10. 29) ovSebs ecrrtv os d(f)f)Kev olkiclv rj ywcuKa r) d8eXcf>ovs 

k.t.A. cannot well be otherwise expressed; also L. 14. 21 toi>s tttwxovs 
kolI ävcnreipovs koli TV(f>\.ov<s kcu ^wAoi's etcrdyaye wSe is a simple and 
straightforward expression, no less than Jo. 5. 3 TrXrjdos twv da9e- 
vovvtwv, TvcfiXuv x^Aojv ^pwv (in the latter passage kcu would be 
superfluous, in Lc it is not so because the different persons are 
summed up). Where there are only two ideas N.T. (like classical) 
Greek is not fond of asyndeton, except where opposites are connected, 
as in 2 Tim. 4. 2 k-n-ia-rrjOi evKaipus aKatpm, cp. aw kcctoj, nolens volens, 
Kühner 865 d, Win. § 58, 7 1 . But polysyndeton is used with a 
really rhetorical effect in P. 9. 4 &v rj vlodecria kgu r) 86£a kcu cu 
SiaörJKai Kai r) vop.o6ecria Kai rj Xarpela Kai at iirayyeXiai (cp. 2. 17 ff), 
Or in Ap. 5. I2 Xaßeiv t»)v Svvap.LV Kai ttXovtov Kai (rocpiav Kai lcr\vv 
Kai Tip-yjv Kai Sö'£av Kai euAoytav ; just as asyndeton is used in 1 C. 

3. 12 €1 TIS ETTOtKoSo^et €Trl TOV 6ep.kXlOV \pV(TLOV, dpyvpOV, XlOoi'S TlyUlOl'S, 

1 If the negative idea (with ov) is attached to the positive, «u may be in- 
serted or omitted : 1 C. 10. 20 öatfjLoviots Kai ov 0e£, 3. 2 7dXa ... , ov ßpwfia 
{DEFG ins. kcu), 7. 12 etc. 


£i'Aa, -xpprov, KaX6.fx.rjv, which should be recited in a vivid way, giving 
emphasis to the studied anti-climax. 

4. If the connected ideas are finite verbs, this leads us at once to 
asyndeton between sentences ; but there are certain imperatives 
which deserve a separate mention. Mt. 5. 24 tfira-y€ -xpCtrov 8taXXdyi]$i, 
8. 4 etc. (18. 15 uTraye e'Aey^ov nBD, a v.l. inserts «aij similarly Mc 
6. 38 ; but in Ap. 1 6. 1 all uncials have Kal), cp. the classical use of 
aye and id 1 (N.T. does not use epx ov thus, but has e. Kal 18t Jo. 1. 47, 
11. 34, Ap. 6. 1, 3, 5, 7 [in Ap. there is a cmrect v.l., omitting Kal 
t'Sel) ; itytipe apov Mc. 2. 1 1 (in 9 most mss. insert Kal), but in L. 6. S 
only A has '£y. o-rrj6i, and there is preponderant evidence for Kal, in 
Mt. 9. 6 «C al. read ZyepOels apov, B reads as in Mc, D tyzipe Kal 
apov. we further have lydpecrßa dyupev in Mt. 26. 4Ö = Mc. 14. 42; 
also dvdo-ra is so used at least as a v.l. of D* in A. 11. 7 dvdo~ra Her pi. 
Ovcrov, § 74, 3. Further we have 'dpa opdre, ßXk-n-ere = cave(te) (cp. 
§ 64, 2), Mt. 9. 30 opdre pifals ytvcucrKCTw, 24. 6 opdre plj dpoiiabi. 
(Buttm. p. 209), and accordingly opdre (ßX.) /a?) -with conjunctive in 
Mt., Mc, Lc. is also apparently to be regarded as an instance of 
asyndeton, Mt. 24. 4 ßXeirere p.r\ tis fyxas 7rAav/ycn/, although in 
passages like Col. 2. 8 ßX. p.r\ ns «rrou, A. 13. 40, H. 12. 25 the pi) 
subordinates the following clause no less than it does in ßXtTrkria p) 
7r€cr>; 1 C. 10. 12. On <xc/>es with conj. see § 64, 2. Not far removed 
from these instances is criwira Tre^cpwcro Mc. 4. 39 (cr. Kal (fupwdijri D). 
The corresponding use of asyndeton with indicatives is limited to 
tyeve-ro with a finite verb, §77, 6, and to the asyndeton after rovro 
in an explanation of the preceding clause (classical, Kühner ii.- 864) 
L. 3. 20 irpoo-kd^Ke ko.1 rovro tirl irao-Lv, KdTeKAeure k.t.X. (X*BD al.) ; 
a peculiar instance is 1 C. 4. 9 Sokio yap (on add. « C D C al.) o Öeo? 
d-n-iSeL^v, which should be compared with the insertion of 8oKdre and 
paprvpC) inf. 7. — Again, where we have to do with really distinct 
clauses and sentences, a distinction must be drawn between narrative 
style on the one hand, and didactic and homiletic (or conversational) 
style on the other. In narrative the connecting link is generally 
retained, at least by Mt., Mc. and Lc, for John certainly shows a 
remarkable difference from them in this respect : thus in 1. 23 e<£>/, 
26 dweKpiOrj, 29 tj; liravpiov ßXe7T€L } similarly in 35, 37 i"]Kovcrav (Kal 
i"jK. N C ABC al.), 38 o-rpafals (with Se N a ABC al.), 40 Ae'yei, 41 yv 
(A al. ty 8k), 42 ebpio-Ket,, 43 r/yayev (kou ?;y. AX al.) and epßXe\fa<; 
avr<Z etc., beside which he uses the connecting particles ovv, 8e, Kai 
These instances of asyndeton give the impression of ease, not so 
much of vividness or hurry on the part of the narrator. (Hermas 
has similar instances, e.g. Vis. iii. 10. 2 diroKpiOelo-d poi Xeya. 9 
a7roKpi0el<; avnj Ae'yw — air. pot Aeyei, and again in 10, so that he uses 
asyndeton just in these formulas of narrated dialogue, where most 
of John's instances occur, and like John he is fond of using it with 
the historic present, Winer § 60, 1 ; he also uses it with uera 7roAAa 
eV»/, p. xpovov nvd etc., Vis. LI. 1 ft*., cp. supra 2 ad fin.) — In the 
didactic style of the Gospels asyndeton is very commonly found 
between the individual precepts and utterances, e.g. almost through- 
out the whole passage Mt. 5. 3-17, and not only where there is no 


connection of thought, 1 but also in spite of such connection : ibid. 17 
jM] vofiio-rjre on rjkdov KaraXvcrai ..." ovk rjXdov KaraAwrai k.t.A. (in- 
stead of ov yap), L. 6. 27 dyawaTe tous ..., ko, A<3s Troidre Tots ..., Trpoa- 
ev\€(r6e Trepl .... (29) to) tvtttovtl ..., Kal cnro k.t.A. (from this point 
onwards there is more connection). John also frequently employs 
it: 3. 6 to yeyewTj/xevov ..., 7 /x?) Oavp-ao-ys ..., 8 to Tvvevpo. k.t.A. 
Here too the asyndeton is used with no rhetorical purpose, although 
it perhaps gives greater solemnity and weight to the discourse. The 
style of the exhortations and precepts in the Epistles is similar. 
But in the Epistles, especially the Pauline Epistles, we also find 
many instances, some of them brilliant instances, of rhetorical 
asyndeton, see § 82. 

5. New sections in doctrinal writings of some length usually have, 
as in classical works, some link to connect them with the preceding- 
section, and this is at any rate essentially requisite in a work that 
lays claim to careful execution. On the other hand, the epistolary 
.style is apt to make use of asyndeton, when a further subject is 
started, and there are moreover numerous instances in Paul 
and other writers where such a fresh start is made (e£ oVoo-Tao-ews, 
i.e. 'with a break'), quite apart from the Epistle of James, 
which has the appearance of being a collection of aphorisms, 
and the first Epistle of John which is hardly less loosely put to- 
gether. In the Epistle to the Romans there are connecting links 
till we reach 8. 16 avTo to TTveü^a a-vppaprv pel k.t.A., where one may 
very well speak of a figure of e£ oVoo-Taa-cws ; the thought is so 
directly the outcome of the feeling (as also in 10. 1). The absence 
of a connecting link at the beginning of the second main section of 
the letter (9. 1), which is so distinct from the preceding section, may 
be surprising, but a mere conjunction would here be quite inadequate 
to produce a connection. In 1 Corinthians the e£ aVoo-Tao-ews con- 
struction is profusely and effectively employed ; but new subjects 
are also sometimes introduced without a conjunction, as in 5. 9, 
6. 1, 12, but in 7. 1, 25, 8. 1, 12. 1, 16. 1 we have Trepl 8e, in 15. 1 
yvwpt^o) Se, etc. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the connection of 
sections is regularly preserved, except in the hortatory sections 
which are not connected with one another. 

6. The other class of construction, the compact or periodic, has 
never been entirely wanting in any form of Greek literature ; it is 
found for instance where the first-mentioned part of the thought 
defines the time of what follows, and this statement of time is not 
given in a few words (such as e'v eKeivais Tat? ^/xepcus), but at such 
length that a pause is required after it ; thus we have a clause 
standing first which though it stands by itself gives a broken and 
incomplete meaning, and must therefore be succeeded by a second 
clause to complete the sense. This style is also found where the 
first part of the sentence is a condition etc., or where the subject of 

1 In this case Attic writers also employ asyndeton in admonitions, Isocrates 
R. i. ii. iii. : cp. his statement on this subject in xv. 67 f. 


the sentence which is placed at the beginning is expanded by means 
of attributive words into a separate clause ; there is a weaker, 
but still a true, connection of clauses, where two members of an 
antithesis, or a disjunction, or a parallelism, are set side by side, and 
the link between the first member and the second is expressed by a 
particle such as pkv, 1), re or Kai. Even a particle is not absolutely 
necessary to produce connection, so that we may even speak of 
periods where asyndeton is used, as in 1 C. 7. 27 SeSco-cu ywaiKi' p.rj 
(iJtu Xvcriv XeXvcrai u7ro yvvaiKos' /xv) £'/ T€l yuvaiKa, =ci p.ev 8e8ecrai . . . 
et Se AeAvo-cu, cp. § 82, 8. We, it is true, are accustomed only to 
speak of a periodic style, where the number of clauses which com- 
bine to form a single unit and which only receive their full meaning 
from the last of them is far in excess of two, and we consequently 
fail to discover a periodic style in the N.T., since as a matter of fact 
there are not many sentences of this kind to be found in it. We have 
indeed the preface to Luke's Gospel, L. 1. 1-4 k7rei8i]7rep iroXXdi eire^i- 
pqcrav \ duard^atrOat Snjyijcriv wepl tmv TreTrX-qpofpopijpei'iov kv irpay- 
/MTiov I KaOa (sic D) 7rape8o(rav 01 dir dp^rjs avroirrai Kal vTnjpkrai 
yevop.evot tov Xoyov I e'8o£e Kapol TrapijKoXovdrjKOTL dviodev irdariv UKpißu/s 
I Kade^ijs (tol ypi\pai Kparicrre Qeo<ptXe | Iva «riyvws TrtpX &v KaTi])(ij6rjs 
Xoyoiv rqv dcrcpdXeiav, where, if the sentence is divided as above, and 
regard is had to the appropriate length of the clauses, erring neither 
on the side of excessive length or brevity, a beautiful relation is seen 
to exist between the protasis with its three clauses and the apodosis 
with its corresponding structure. Since 7roAAot is answered by 
xdpol, and dvar. Sujyrjo-Lv by ypdipai, and the KaOd clause by iVa 
eiriyvws k.t.X., we see that the last clause, which is appended to a 
sentence already complete, is at least demanded by the correspond- 
ence which prevails throughout the whole passage. The same 
writer, however, in the rest of his Gospel has by no means taken 
the trouble to construct artistic periods, and his second work, 
the Acts, does not even open with a tolerably well-constructed 
sentence ; the only similar period to be found besides in that author 
occurs at the beginning of the Apostolic letter, A. 15. 24 ff. The 
artificially-constructed sentence at the beginning of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews is of a different character. floXvpepus koX 7roA.vTpo7rw? o Oeos XaXijcras toI$ irarpaa-cv ev rots irpo<pi'jTat^ | kir k<r\aTOV 
rai/ fjp.epi>)v TovTiov kXdXrjrrev rjplv kv via> (this according to ancient 
ideas is a complete period with two clauses or members, to which 
some looser clauses are then directly appended): ov Wijxev KXijpov6p.ov 
Trdvrutv | 81 oS Kal kiroLTjcrev tous cu'wvas (with a rhetorical anaphoric 
use of the relative with asyndeton, § 82, 5 ; as in the subsequent 
passage) | ös &v diravyairpa t^s So^ijs Kal ^apaKTijp tt/s i'7roo-Tuo-€<o$ 
avrov I (pkpwv re Ta irdvra tw pi'jpan tt}? Swa/iews avrov | Kadapirrpov 
twv dp.apTLiüv iroirjirapevos | exddurev kv Septet tt/s peyaX(ocrvvijs kv 
vipijXols (a period with four clauses) | toctovtm Kpeirrwv yevo/xevos Ttüi' 
ayyeAwi' | o'eno 8t,a(f)opu)Tepov Trap' avrovs K€i<Xr)pov6p,r)K€V oro/za (an 
appended period consisting of two clauses connected by too-ovtm ... 
00-10). The rest of the Epistle is composed in a similarly fluent 
and beautiful rhetorical style, and the whole work must, especially 

^ 79. 6-7.] CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 28 1 

with regard to the composition of words and sentences, be reckoned 
as a piece of artistic prose, cp. § 82, 2. Paul on the other hand, 
generally does not take the trouble which is required for so careful 
a style, and hence it happens that in spite of all his eloquence artistic 
periods are not to be looked for in his writings, while harsh paren- 
theses and anacolutha abound. 

7. In the case of a parenthesis the direct course of a sentence is 
interrupted by a subordinate idea being inserted into the middle of 
it. We also freely make use of parentheses in writing, but prevent 
the irregularity of the construction from interfering with the intel- 
ligibility of the passage by enclosing the interruption within brackets 
or dashes, unless indeed we throw the clause, which might be a 
parenthesis, into a foot-note. The need of a parenthesis usually 
arises from the fact that some idea or thought which occurs in the 
sentence necessitates a pause, such for instance as the introduction of 
a foreign word which requires explanation. In that case a sentence, 
which should strictly be closely joined together, is divided in two ; 
this is done either in such a way that the whole construction still 
preserves its unity, as in Mt. 27. ^ €('s ... ToAyooa, ö k<mv Kpaviov 
To-os 1 , or else the insertion entirely destroys the structure of the 
sentence (anacoluthon), or again after the insertion, which is 
expressed as an independent clause, the writer returns to the original 
construction. In this last case we have a parenthesis. An instance 
of it is Mt 24. 15 f orai' fov/re to ßöeXvy/ia ... (6 äva-yivuxrKuv voei-rtü), 
Tore ol k.t.X. Or again an accessory but indispensable thought 
cannot be brought into bine with the construction which has 
already been begun, and is thrown into the sentence just as it 
arises, e.g. in A. 12. 3 TrpocreOero crvXXaßelv Kai IleTpov — fjcrav Se at 
rjpepai twv a£vucoi' — Sv Kal TTiacras k0e~o els <f>vXaKt]V, where it would 

have been possible to bind the sentence more closely together by 
saying —epl arras ras rjpkpa<; ras tü)v d^i'awv Kai Uerpov crvXXaßujv eis 
<£vAaK7/v eOero ; but that would be the artistic style, not the style of 
the New Testament. Cp. 1. 15, 4. 13, (§ 77, 12). The parenthesis 
in A. 5. 14 fxaXXov 8e -pocre-iOei'To k.-.X. is harsh; it is true that the 
sentence runs smoothly on from 13, but the return to the main sen- 
tence after the parenthesis is awkwardly executed ; the clause öxr-e 
Kai eis ras jrAaretas k.t.X. in reality expresses a result not of verse 14 
but of 1 3, though it looks as if the former were the case. But many 
of the worst instances of this sort occur in the Pauline Epistles. If 
the thread of St. Paul's thought, when considered as a whole and in 
larger sections, includes many lengthy digressions (Win. § 62, 4), it 
is not to be wondered at that in smaller matters also the connection 
of clauses suffers in the same way. A parallel passage to A. 5. 14 is 

1 If an explanatory clause of this kind is inserted into the report of a direct 
speech, of which it can form no part, it must certainly be enclosed in brackets, 
in spite of the fact that the construction is not broken by it. Thus Mc. 7. 11 
eäv dir-Q ... Kopßav (o ecTiv 52-pov), Jo. 1. 39. (It is different if a scholium of this 
kind is appended to a direct speech, as in Jo. 9. 7, 1. 42 etc., Winer § 62, 2 


R. 1. 13 OTl TTokkaKLS TTpOeOefJLlJV kXOilV TTpoS V{AaS, Kdi il<U>\vdr)V a.\pl 

tou Sevpo, iva tivci Kapirov cr^w Ka ' *v v/itv, wliere the tVa clause is to 
be joined with Trpoi.6kp.ip'. As here there is a lacuna in the thought 
between the words Sevpo and «W, so is there in 2. 15 f. between aVo- 
koyovp-kvuiv and ev y i)p.epa, so that it might appear best to suppose that 
in the latter passage there is a parenthesis ; but it is not till a long 
way back in the sentence that one reaches a definite point, to which Iv 
II K.r.k. may be smoothly and logically joined according to the original 
conception of the thought. 1 But to all appearance it is Marcion's 
text (which is known from some quotations) which alone affords us 
real help here, by omitting the Iv ?J rjftepq. (or Iv 17/*. ?}, or Iv rjp.. ore), 
and introducing a very expressive asyndeton, cp. 1. 22, 7. 24, 8. 16 etc. 
But these details are matters for the commentator to discuss as they 
severally arise. Another grammatical point to note is that, as in 
classical Greek, a finite verb is occasionally inserted in the middle of 
the construction (which there would be no point in isolating from 
the rest of the sentence by marks of parenthesis, and to do so might 
even give a wrong meaning) : L. 13. 24 ttoWoI, Aeyw, (yrycrovo-iv 
k.t.A. ('I tell you'), 2 C. 8. 3 oVt Kara 8vvap.1v, jiapTupu, /ecu 7ra|0a 

8vvap.LV K.T.X., H. 10. 29 7TÜCRI) 8oK£lT€ Y_€l/>OVOS ä£lU>9lj(T€Ta.t, Tip.U>pia* 

(Herrn. Sim. ix. 28. 8 tL SoKtfre 7roi?;o-a), in all which passages it 
would be very easy to work the word into the construction ; classical 
writers however have the same construction in numerous passages 
with olSa, opas, oip-ai etc., Kühner ii. 2 873 f. (Aristoph. Ach. 12 7rws 
tout' «racre p.ov Sokzis t>)v KapSiav ;). To this category belong the 
Pauline phrases Kara avOponrov Aeyto R. 3. 5, ev a<ppoo-vvrj Xeyoj 2 C. 
11. 21, a>s TCKvots Aeyo) 6. 13, which are epidiorthoses and prodi- 
orthoses expressed in the concisest way. But the insertion of (pao-iv, 
e<pr] etc. does not come under this head, as this is only a case of displace- 
ment in the position of the word in the sentence : 2 C. 10. 10 6V1 ai 
€ pkv <pa<riv ßapelai (=6'ti (pacriV "Ai p.ev" k.t.A.), Mt. 14. 8, 
A. 23. 35 etc. Also proper names and temporal statements placed 
in the nominative in defiance of the construction (§ 33, 2) are not 
parenthetical, because they form an essential part of the main 
thought, and occur in their right place in the sentence. 

8. Anacoluthon is due to a failure in carrying out the originally 
intended structure of the sentence ; since the continuation and 
sequence do not correspond with what has gone before. In artistic 
prose instances of anacoluthon must generally be reckoned as 
blemishes, although they are not entirely wanting even in the prose 
of Isocrates ; on the other hand its occurrence in writings where 
there is an imitation of a natural conversational tone, as in the cases 
where Plato has it, is quite justified, and it may therefore be con- 
sidered justifiable in epistolary style as well, so long as it does not 
interfere with the understanding of the passage, though this limita- 
tion certainly seems not unfrequently to be transgressed by St. Paul. 

1 Wilke d. neutest. Rhetorik (Dresden 1843) p. 216, 22S f. makes the sug- 
gestion that verses 14 and 15 were added as a marginal note. 


Of the very various forms of anacoluthon I give the first place to a 
peculiar instance, which appears in the simplest periods, consisting 
of two members or clauses (supra 6). Mt. 12. 36 ttdv prjfxa dpybv o 
\.a\r)(TOV(Tiv ol dvdpwwoL | airo&iocrovo-LV irepl civtoü Adyov, 10. 32, Jo. 6. 
39, 1 17. 2, L. 12. 48, 2 C. 12. 17 fir/ Tiva wv aVecrTaAKa irpus vp,a$ | SY 
avrov eVAeoveKTj^o-a iy*as ; In these instances the two halves of the 
sentence required to be placed in opposition to each other, with a 
pause between them and a reference in the second half back to the 
first, and a certain weightiness is given to the style by treating each 
part of the sentence independently, instead of writing for instance 
ocra av prjp.ara apya AaAv^craxriv, irepi iravnav (tovtiov) aTroSwo'ovcriv 
Adyov. In the passage from St. Paul riva is obviously occasioned by 
direo-TaXKa ; with this is compared 1 Jo. 2. 27 k<xi vp,£is to \plap.a o 
kkdßere 6.1? avrov | p.£vei kv i\iiv, where the pronoun occurs in both 
members, and in the first is to be taken with kXdßere, whereas the 
passage might have run without anacoluthon Kai kv tö \p. o eA. 
d. a. /zevei. A similar case occurs ibid. 24 i'/xeis o r/Kovo-are dir' dp\rj<; 
j kv /MeveVtü 2 (p.evei or peeve™ by itself was not sufficient to make 
a clause, and the contrast between beginning and continuance 
required to be sharply expressed). Other instances of anacoluthon 
of this or a kindred sort are: A. 7. 40 6 Mwi'o-^s oStos, 6s..., ovk 
OL?>ap.ev Tt cyeveTO avrw (O.T. Ex. 32. i), 3 Jo. 7. 38 6 Tricrrevojv ci's kp.k 
... TTorapiol €K rrjs KoiXias avrov ptvcrovcriv k.t.A. 4 , Mc. 9. 20 kgu iStuv 
avrov, to irvevpa o-vvtcnrdpa^ev ai>Tov (instead of axvecnvapdydri vtto tov 
7TV.), A. 19. 34 €7riyvdvT€s 8k ort 'lovSalos «rnv, <piovij eyeveTO pia €K 
TrdvTwv (instead of kßöi]o-av 6p.ov Trdvrts, which would not conveniently 
suit the following words). A very awkward instance occurs in Ap. 

2. 26 and 3. 12, 21 6 vlkwv, Swo-co avrw ; on the other hand in 2. 7, 17 
we have tw vikmvti, 8wo-a> airrw, cp. 6. 4, Mt. 4. 16 O.T., 5. 40 (the 
pronoun referring back to the preceding clause, § 48, 2). Herrn. 
Mand. iv. 5 is like an instance of nominative absolute of the old sort 
(§ 74, 5), dp,<porepa to Trve.vp.ara kirl to avrb KaTOiKOWTa, d(rvp,(pop6v 
kcrriv ... knavco ev w koltolkovctiv. 

9. Another kind of anacoluthon is found in sentences of greater 
length, where the interruption of the original construction by inter- 
vening sentences causes that construction to be forgotten, so that in 
the mind of the writer another is substituted for it. Thus A. 24. 6 

1 Here we find tva irdv 5 deotoicds fxoi, /J.r/ drroKeaiu e£ avrov, dWä dvaarrjao} avrb 
A.-.T.A., with was ... pi) for ovdds, § 47, 9, though here no doubt the negative 
looks on to the second positive half of the sentence, Buttmann p. 106, as in Jo. 

3. 1 6. According to Buttm. 325 the irdv in all these instances is nominative 
('nominative absolute,' cp. § 74, 4) ; as it also is according to him in Jo. 15. 2 
wdv kXtj/jlcl iv i/uol /at) <pipov Kapirbv, atpei avrb. 

2 Therefore this is not a case of the subject being thrown forward before the 
relative (§ 80, 4), whereas 1 C. 11. 14 dvrjp fiev iäv KOfxa, drifiia atrip iariv k.t.X. 
may be so explained, as = iäv fiev dvrip. 

3 In L. 21. 6 there is no reference in the second clause to the ravra &, and we 
should probably follow D in omitting a. 

4 Herrn. Mand. vii. 5 rQv 5e p.r] <pv\aaabvruv ... (the genitive is due to assimila- 
tion with the preceding antithetical clause), ovde far) iariv iv avroh. 

284 CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. [§ 79. 9-10. 

(in the speech of Tertullus, which is transmitted by Luke Math 
greater negligence than any other), evpovres ydp tov avSpa tovtov 
Xoi/xov ..., os kclI..., bv kcu eKparvyo-a/xev k.t.A.; this ov kolI, which is occa- 
sioned by os kcu preceding, should have been dropped, in order to make 
the period run correctly, whereas the writer here continues as though 
he had begun with evpopev. The narrative portions of the N.T. do 
not contain many anacolutha of this kind : the passage Jo. 6. 22-24 
has been transmitted with too much variation in the MSS. for us to 
be able to clearly recognize the hand of the author ; according to the 
usual reading the rg knavpiov 6 o\Aos at the beginning is taken up 
again in 24 with ore ovv efSev 6 öx^os, in a manner that is not 
unknown in classical writers, where there is no question of forgetful- 
ness at all; cp. 1 Jo. 1. 1-3. But the Pauline Epistles (though not 
all to the same extent, as the care with which they were written 
varied considerably) contain numerous and more flagrant instances. 
In G. 2. 6 u7tu oe Ttüi' Sokovvtoh' eivai TL ... o7roioi 7roTe ijcrav, ovSev p.01 
8ia<p€pei' Trp6cr<DTrov #€os dvOpioirov ov Xa/xßdvet ... epol yap 01 Sokouvtcs 
oi'Sev irpoo-aveOevTo, instead of e/xot oi>8ev irpoo-aveTeßt], the author may 
either have forgotten his opening clause or else considered it con- 
venient to repeat it in a new form. At all events the passage is 
easily understood 1 ; but just before in 4 Sid Se tovs -n-apeLo-aKTovs 
\pevo'aS'eX.<pov<; ... ols (ouSe) 777)05 dlpav ei^a/xev k.t.A., it is by no means 
easy to say what was the drift of St. Paul's thought in the opening 
clause, unless the ofs (which is omitted by Latin MSS.) is spurious. 2 
In many cases defective transmission or criticism of the text is cer- 
tainly to blame : in R 2. 1 7 ff. an obvious remedy is by adopting 
the reading iSe for et Se (which can hardly be called a variant : 
«I AE - IAE, Tde - ide) to change what appears to be a protasis with- 
out a correct apodosis into a principal clause. 3 But in 1 Tim. 1. 3 ff. 
the construction which began with Ka#ws 7rape/<dAeo-d ere k.t.A. through 
innumerable insertions and appended clauses is unmistakably reduced 
to utter confusion. 

10. Frequent instances of anacoluthon are occasioned in St. Paul 
by the free use of the participle, which he is fond of using, and some- 
times in a long series of clauses, instead of a finite verb. Thus 2 C 
7. 5 ov8ep.iav ecry^Kev avetriv ?y (rdp£ i)pwv, dXX' kv 7tcu'ti 8\ißö|i6voi' 
e^wdev p.a\ai, ecrcodev <f>6ßoi, where one may no doubt supply Zo-pev in 
the first clause as eurlv in the second, though this does not do away 
with the harshness and the want of accurate sequence in the passage. 
Similarly in 5. 12 ov ... o-vvuTTavopev ..., üAA' dfpoppijv SiSovTes (sc. 
ypd(f)o/xev TavTo). So ibid. 8. 18 ff. a~vveire/i}f/afj£v Se tov dSeA^br ..., oS 

1 Belser (die Selbstverteidigung des. P. im Gal. br., Freiburg im Br. 1S96, 
p. 69) says with regard to the attempt (of Spitta and others) to give a uniform 
construction to this sentence : ' A philologist, who with a sane mind proceeds 
to expound the verse, cannot ovdl wpbs (bpav be in doubt as to the perverseness 
of the undertaking.' 

2 In any case in R. 16. 27 u> should be removed (with B), not only because of the 
anacoluthon, but especially in order to give dta 'I. Xp. its proper connection. 

Cp. Wilke (op. cit. p. 282, note 1) p. 215 f., who, it is true, decides con- 
clusively in favour of el 6L 


o €7raivos . . . ota iramav tcov €kkXi]<tmi>v, ov fxovov 8e, aAAa kgu ^«ipoTovriOcls 
(instead of k\eipoTOVi']6yf) vtto twv €kk\i](tiü)i> o-uvckS^os i)/jlCjv (tvv 
ttj yapLTi ry StaKorovp.kmj v<f> ~>)/J-wv, <rT€\Xd|x€vot tovto, {jlyj tis t)p.d<s 
fj.w/jLi]<ri]Tat k.t.X., where o-TeAA. is closely connected not so much with 
o-we7re/Aj/'a/xev (i.e. sent with Timothy), as with o-uvckS^juos ^/awv etc., 
so that it is an undoubted case of anacoluthon, the participle stand- 
ing for (TTeWofxeda ydp. In E. 5. 21 there is no direct anacoluthon, 
but vTroracro-opLevoi has not the same closer connection with the last 
finite verb TrXypovcrde 18, which XaXovvres etc. 19, and ei'xa/aio-TowTes 
20 have ; the style is the same as in R. 12. 9 ff, where in the exhor- 
tations (after the style has already been entirely broken up in 6 ff., 
cp. § 78, 2) participles (or adjectives) are appended to each other in 
an unending series, with no possibility of bringing them into any 
construction. Thus in the opening verse 9 1) dydirr] awTroKpiros 
interrupts the remarks about what the Romans should be, individu- 
ally (8) or collectively ; after the interruption, however, he continues 
with d-n-oa-rvyovvre', ... <£iAoa-Tooyoi etc. up to SiwKOVTes 13; then in 
14 f. there is a fresh interruption of clauses in the imperative or 
infinitive; in 16 we again have participles <f>povovi>Tes etc. and again 
an imperative ytWcröe, in 17 ff. there is a continuation of the series 
of participles ; it looks as though St. Paul regarded the descriptive 
participle (whether eWe is mentally supplied or not) as completely 
equivalent to the imperative. Cp. further E. 4. 20 TrapaKaXQ lyxds 

TrepL7raTrjcrai ... äv€\o(A€Voi ctAAv/Aojv... (nrovSd^ovres (cp. 2 P. 3. 3), 3. 18, 

Col. 3. 16 f. o Aoyos evoiK€6Tw... SiSdcrKovTes k.t A., where the participle 
follows upon imperatives and is equivalent to them as in Rom. loc. cit.; 
but there is a similar anacoluthon in 2 C. 9. 1 1 7rXovTi£6p.evoi after an 
assertion in the future tense, in 13 &o£d£ovres k.t.X.. there is an extension 
of the preceding Sid 7roXXwv tvxapio-TLwv tw 6*ew (the subject of the 
part, being the recipients of the benefit), cp. 1. 7; participles are used 
without anacoluthon, but in a very long series in 2 C. 6. 3-10. The 
constant element in all these instances is the nominative of the parti- 
ciple, which is therefore essentially connected with this free use. Cp. 
Aeywv, AeyovTes § 30, 6. The reverse use is occasionally found, namely 
the use of a finite verb in place of a participle . Col. 1. 26 to p.vcm)ptov 
to aTroKeKpvfifievov ..., vvvl Se k<pavepu>di) (D cjxxvepwOev) ; 2 Jo. 2 Tt\v 
fikvovcrav kv, kcu p.eO' ?/yiicui/ ecrrai, Jo. 15. 5 6 p.kvwv kv e/xot, Kayco (sc. 
p\evw) kv avru), ovtos <p"epei Kapwov, 5. 44 (but N*e etc. regularly ^touvtcs), 
2 C. 6. 9; Ap. 3. 7 ; it is less harsh in 1 C. 7. 37 os «o-Tr/Ktv ... p) 
e'x wi/ ••• k^ovcriav Se e^ei, cp. Jo. 5. 44, 1. 32. Parallels may 
undoubtedly be quoted from classical writers for this use, as also for 
the free use of appended participles in the nominative, Kühner ii. 2 
661 ff.; it is the frequency, harshness, and awkwardness of its use in 
the N.T. which makes the difference; since anacolutha such as A. 15. 
22 f. ZSogtv Tot? dVoo-ToAots ( = the Apostles determined)... irepupai ..., 
ypaxpavTis might be equally well written by a classical author, as 
Thuc. iii. 36. 2 writes e8o£ev avrols ... cnroKTeivat, kTriKaXovvres. 1 

1 Clem. Cor. i. 11. 1 may be noticed, Acut tawdr] iK ~S,o5ö^ojv, tt?s vepixüpov 
Kpideia 7]s ... , irpofirfKov ■Kovqaa.i 6 dea-n-brris k.t.X., as though Zawctv had preceded. 

286 CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. [§ 79. 11-12. 

11. On the absence of a particle corresponding to the particle |X€'v, 
which strictly requires a 8k corresponding to it, see § 77, 12. A unique 
case of anacoluthon occurs in A. 27. 10 dtupw oTi...fiek\eiv (§ 70, 4), 
where the on was required to prevent ambiguity, and the infinitive is 
due to forgetfulness (supra 8), cp. Xenoph. Hell. ii. 2. 2 etc., Winer 
§ 44, 8, note 2. To a relative clause there is sometimes appended a 
further clause with a co-ordinating particle (such as kou), in which 
the relative cannot be supplied in the same form as in the first clause 
(classical, Kühner 936 f.): Tit. 1. 2 f. (idijs, vjv eV^yyeiAaro ..., ec/w- 
epcjo-ev 8e vvv rbv Xoyov avrov, Ap. 17. 2 (also 1 C. 7. 13 with the 
reading ^ti% but a better reading is el tis in nD* al.), L. 17. 31. 
The construction is rather one of oratio variata than of anacoluthon 
in R. 2. 6 ff. os aTroSojcm ... rots /xev ... £to?yv tois 8e ... opyi] kou 6vp.6s 
(sc. ecrrai ; the idea conveyed by 8u><rei would not admit of being sup- 
plied with these nouns), the passage continues with the same con- 
struction, but a fresh contrast is formed, 6\l\pis kou crrevoxcupia eVi 
■jravav xpv^rfv ..., 86£a 8e k.t.A. Cp. 11. 22 ; G. 4. 6 f. 0T6 8e «o-tc vloi, 

l^aTTia-TeiXev . . . eis ras /capStas r|p.(öv '12o"T€ oukcti tl k.t.A.. (but 

ibid. 6. 1 o-K07rwv a-eavrov k.t.A. is a real case of anacoluthon). 

12. Mixture of direct and indirect speech. — It has already been 
remarked that the employment of the indirect form of speech, 
whether with 6'ti and the optative, or with the accusative (nomin.) 
and infinitive, is not in the manner of the N.T. writers of narrative, 
as it is foreign to the style of popular narrators in general (§§ 66, 3 ; 
70, 4) ; from this it follows that not only does 6V1 ordinarily take 
the indicative instead of the optative (a tendency which it also has in 
classical Greek), but it may also be followed by an accurate reproduc- 
tion of the direct form of the speech, so that 6V1 thus performs the 
function of our inverted commas (Kühner p. 885). An example which 
shows this is Jo. 10. 36 (Buttm. p. 234) . ..v/xus Xeyere öVi "ßXaa-^q/xeis," 
6'ti dirov k.t.A., instead of /3Aaa-(£r//xetv, which would have linked on 
much better to the protasis öv k.t.A. 1 But it is quite impossible for a 
N.T. writer to do what is so common in classical Greek (and Latin) 
Avriters, namely to continue the indirect form of speech for any length 
of time; on the contrary they never fail to revert very soon to direct 
speech, a habit which is also not unusual in classical authors, Kühner 
p. 1062 f. Thus A. 1. 4 TraprjyyeiXev . . . /xrj ^wpi^eo-öat, aAAa Trepi/xeveiv 
... rjv T|Kovo-aT€, 23. 22, Ma 6. 8 f. TrapijyyeiXev iva..., dAA' vTro8e8e^ivovs 
... (as though an inf. had preceded), kol /at) ivSvcrrjcrde k.t.A., L. 5. 14. 
Inversely, the direct form of speech is occasionally abandoned in 
favour of the indirect or a narrative form : A. 23. 23 dirty eTot/xao-aTe 
..., (24) KTrjvr] re TrapacrTTJcrai k.t.A. (the ß text is different and runs 
more smoothly), Mc. 11. 31 f. eav eiVw^ei' ..., epei ... aAAa €i7T(op.€V . . . ; 
i(jioßovi>To rbv kaov k.t.A. (instead of 4>oßovpe6a, as in Mt. 21. 26 and 
as D 2 al. read here from the passage of Matthew). A different use 
from this is that in Mc. 2. 10 'Iva 8\ d8rJTe ... (addressed to the Phari- 
sees like the preceding words), Aey« tw TrapaXvriKw' "Sol Aeyw 

1 Herrn. Mand. ix. 1 even uses 071 before a question : \eyuv 6tl irCis Svvafiii 


§79- 12. §8o. L] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 287 

k.t.X." (as in L. 5. 24, while Mt. 9. 6 has töte Aeyet) ; the speech is 
related just as it was made, and the apostrophe to the sick man is 
indicated by the parenthetical words (the use of Iva etc. in this way, 
with an ellipse of ' I will say this,' is also classical, Krüger Gr. § 54, 
8, note 14 ; and see § 81, 3). 


1. The Greek language is not one of those which are fettered 
with regard to the position of the different parts of the sentence, and 
it does not act contrary to its nature in this respect in the N.T., 
and the tendency for it to do so was reduced by the fact that the 
Semitic languages also have no strict rules about the order of words. 
In spite of this, both in the Semitic languages, and in the Greek of 
the New Testament, particularly that of writers of narrative, certain 
tendencies and habits are apparent. In general the verb, or the 
substantival predicate with its copula, is placed immediately after 
the conjunction ; then follows the subject, then the object, the 
complementary participle etc.; unemphatic pronouns, however, have 
a tendency to be placed in immediate connection with the verb, also 
anything else that is dependent on the verb, especially if the subject 
is extended. 1 The same rules hold good for infinitival and parti- 
cipial clauses (and for a participle placed at the head of a sentence 2 ) 
as for clauses with a finite verb. Thus we have (Luke 1. n) hxpdrj 
Se avTio äyyeAos Kvplov eo-rws Ik Se£twv. (12) /cat irapd^dr) Za^aptas 
IStav. (13) e«rev Se 7rpbs uvtuv 6 ayyeAos. (18) kgu e?7rei/ Z. 77-pbs tov 
ayyeAov. (19) xal a7roK-pt$ets 6 ayy. ef^ev airtj). With a nominal 
predicate : Mc. 2. 28 wWe Kvpios hrriv 6 vibs tou dvOpunrov kolI toO 
a-aßßdrov (cp. L. 6. 5), for which Mt. 12. 8 has Kvptos ydp ottiv toS 
a-aßß. 6 vlbs tov dvdpwirov, since here the extended subject possessed 
more weight than the genitive, unemphasized by kolI. Mt. 13. 31, 33 
6pota icrrlv rj ßacnXeia T. ovp. kokkw ..., =24 wpoitodrj k.t.X. But the 
participle stands after the subject : L. 2. 33 ty 6 7ra-n}p airov /cat f] 
pi]Trjp 6avp,d£ovTes, A. 12. 6 fjv 6 Tlerpos /cotpw/xevos, Mc. 1. 6, 14. 4, 
40. Still in all these cases there is by no means any binding rule 
about the order, so that in L. 1. in the middle of the clauses quoted 
above we find in verse i2 b /cat c/>o/3os «rewctrcv in aiVov, clearly 
because <f)6ßos offers more of a parallel to erapdxQi] in i2 a than 
e7re7reo-€i/ does: whereas in A. 19. 17 we have /cat «re^eo-ev cf>6ßos «Vi 
Trdvras avTovs, L. 1. 65 ko.1 iyevero iwl 7ravTas (f>6ßos (D </>o/?os piyas 
ewl tt.) Tois TTepioiKovvTas avTovs, where the reason for placing 7ravTas 
early in the sentence in the ordinary reading is to give it stress and 
preserve the parallelism, as the passage continues Kat kv 6>.t) tjJ opeivy 
... cueAaAetTo irdvra rd pSjuara ravra, /cat edevro iravres ot a/cowavTes 
Iv Tats KapSt'ats aTJTtov. Any emphasis whatever on any part of a sen- 

1 E.g. L. 2. 13 Kai i^al<pvr)s iyivero <ri>v t<3 ayyt\u ttXtjOos crrpaTiäs ovpaviov 
alvovvrwv k.t.X. , A. 27. 2 ovTos cruv rj|JLtv ' ApiuTapxov Ma/ceSovos QeacraXoviKews. 

2 For details see Gersdorf , Beiträge zur Sprachcharakteristik d. Schrif tst. d. 
N.T., Leipzig 1816, p. 90 f., 502 ff. 


tence generally tends at once to throw that part into the forefront of 
the sentence : ibid. 67 kgu ZaxapCas 6 Traryp avrov ... (as opposed to 
the neighbours etc., who were the last subjects of discourse), 57 rg 
8e 'EAuraßeT iirX/jcrOr] 6 \povos tov TeKelv avTijv. Statements of time, 
which mark a transition, also have a tendency to stand at the begin- 
ning ; but there too the inclination to begin a sentence with a verb 
occasions the introduction of a meaningless eyevero, which does not 
in all cases affect the construction, before the temporal statement : 
L. 2. 1 eyevero 8e ev rats ?}/u.epais e/ceivais e^ijXdev 86ypa k.t.A., cp. 
§ 77, 6; SO 1. 8 eyevero 8e «V tw leparevetv avrlv ... eAa^e k.t.A., 23 Kai 
eyevero ws eTrXycrOrprav ... diryXOev k.t.A. 

2. Closely related parts of the sentence, e.g. noun and attribute, 
noun and dependent genitive, several subjects or objects connected 
by kou etc., are usually in simple and plain discourse placed together, 
whereas not only in poetry, but also in discourse which has any 
claims to a rhetorical style, they are frequently severed from each 
other, in order to give greater effect to the separated words by their 
isolation. Thus the epistolary formula runs x^/ 31 ? v l^ v koI elpymj, not 
Xapts kou elp., an order of words which is partly occasioned by 
the tendency which from early times exists in Greek as in cognate 
languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns and the like as 
near as possible to the beginning of the sentence (though not to put 
them actually at the beginning 1 ) ; hence we find also K. 1. 11 iva n 
pera8io ^dpiapa vp.iv TrvevparcKov, A. 26. 24 to\ 7roAAa <re ypdppara eis 
paviav irepiTpeiret, Jo. 13. 6 crv pov l/WTTets tows 7ro5as, 9. 6 (**BL) 
eire-^pLcrev avTov tov tt^Aov eVi tous 6(p6aXpov?, H. 4. 11 iva pyj ev tw 
avTio Tis VTroSecyp-art Treo"tj k.t.A., 1 C 5. I Marre yvvaiKa nva tou Trarpos 
ex eiv (also to emphasize both yvv. and 7rarpbs), L. 18. 18 kou eirypw- 
Trjcrev Tis avTov dpx^v Xeywv. But here again there is no obligation 
to use this order of words : thus we have 2 C. 11. 16 k5.v cos d(f)pova 
SegacrOe p.e, where no doubt the object was to give 8e£ao~de the prior 
position. A prior position gives emphasis, a position at the end of 
the sentence does so only indirectly, where the word is torn from its 
natural context and made independent ; the later position may also 
be influenced by the connection with the following clause, as in 1 P. 
2. 7 iyi.ii> ovv y ripvq tois iricrT€vouo-iv direidovo-Lv Se k.t A. Sometimes 
the regular order of words would be too cumbrous and unpleasant : 
A. 4. 33 AE peydXy 8vvapei arreScSovv 01 oVoo-toAoi to paprvpiov tt}s 
dvao-Tao-eojs 'Ir/o-ou \P- T0 " xvpiov, but nB etc. have a better reading 
to p.apr. ot a7roo-ToAo6, and B also has tov k. 'I770-. rrjs dvacrT. We even 
have in Ap. 3. 8 pucpav e'x et? 8vvap.1v (cp. 4 with v.l.). — The Epistle 
to the Hebrews not unfrequently has a really oratorical and choice 
order of words: 1. 4 toctoi'tw KperrTtoi> yevopevos rS>v dyyeXwv, oo~ip 
8ia(\>opwTepov irap avTovs KexXypovopLrpxev ovop.a (it was necessary to 
make dyy. and ovopa stand out ; the latter word also forms a link 
with the following clause), 5 rCvi yap elrrev irore twv dyyeXwv (for the 

1 See J. Wackernagel, Ueber ein Gesetz der indogerm. Wortstellung, Indo- 
germ. Forschungen i. 333 ff. 


same reason), 11. 32 eTriXeixpet, p.e. yap (v.l. yap yue, infra 4) Si^yoiy^eior 
6 xp° vo< > irepl TeSewv k.t.A., which offers a close parallel to Demosth. 

18. 29 f. iiriXeixj/ei p.e. XkyovO' ?/ i^pkpa to. twv Trpoooratv ovopara, 12. I 
toctovtov e^ovres (rocr. emphatic) —epcKeipevov i^piv vecpos p.aprvpu)v, 
oy/cov d~o6kp.€voi (0. emphatic) iravra kcu ri]v evirepto-Tarov dpapTiav. 

But many similar instances may also be cited from Paul and 1 Peter : 
such is the versatility of the Greek language that lively and animated 
discourse everywhere gives rise to these dislocations of words. 

3. With regard to the position of the adjectival attribute, the rule 
holds good that it generally stands after its substantive 1 ; i.e. the 
principal word comes first, and then the word which defines it more 
closely, just in the same way that the adverb which gives a nearer 
definition of an adjective (or a verb) is given the second place : 
vrp-qXbv Xiav Mt. 4. 8, Wvpwßi] Xtav 2. 16. But we also find Xiav (ova.. 
D) irpwL Mc. 16. 2, Xiav yap avrko-rrj 2 Tim. 4. 10, and in the case of an 
attribute oV dvvSpwv to-wv Mt. 12. 43 (du. is the principal idea), K-aAov 
cnreppia 13. 27 (k. ditto), €xfy>os dvOpoiiros 28, nakovs p.apyap'na<; 45 
etc. The rule cannot be laid down for a substantive which is pro- 
vided with an article : irvevp-a dyiov is the correct phrase without 
an article, but with it we have both tu ttv. to dy. and rb dyiov 7rvevp.a 
as in Mt. 28. 19, A. 1. 8, which then becomes a single idea. Cp. 
§ 47, 6 ; t?)v dyiav iroXiv (Jerusalem) Mt. 4. 5, 27. 53 (but 1) it. 17 dy. 
in Ap. 11. 2, 21. 2, 22. 19). — On the attributive genitive see § 35, 6 2 ; 
on oC'tos and kKdvos § 49, 4. — Matthew has a habit of putting adverbs 
after imperatives, while he makes them precede indicatives : thus 
27. 42 Karaßdru) vvv, 43 pvcrdcrdo} vvv, 3. 15 ac/>es dpTi, 18. 16 (en), 
and on the other hand 19. 20 en vo-repw, 26. 65 (5. 13 Icrxvei en, but 
D omits en), 9. 18 (dpn ; in 26. 53 before irapaKaXko-ai according to 
AD al.), 26. 65 (vvv).' 3 — The order of words has become established 
by custom in certain frequently occurring combinations with kcu, 
W iner § 61, 4, such as avöpes kcu yi'i'cuKes, yvv. kgu iraiSia (-re/cva), but 
cod. D in Mt. 14. 21 puts irai8. first, as nD do in 15. 38 ; also kadieiv 
kcu TTLveiv, ot 7rd5es kcu at x € V €S (^ ne reverse order in L. 24. 39, but 
not in «), etc.; but all these are peculiarities of a lexical rather than 
a grammatical nature. — The vocative stands either at the beginning, 
as in Mt. 8. 2 and often, or near the beginning of the sentence, as in 
odev, d8eX(pol dyioi H. 3. i etc., or in proximity to the pronoun of the 
second person, 1 C. 1. 10 TrapaKaXio 8k vpds, d8cX<poi, or to a verbal 
form in the second person, Ja. 1. 2 irdo-av yap^-v i)yrjo-aa6e, d8eX<poi 
piov (this may be compared with the ordinary sequence of verb — 
subject ; there is the same position of the voc. in Jo. 14. 9 too-ovtov 
... kcu ovk e'-yvwKas pe QiXnnre, where «i». could not well have stood